21 March 2010

21/03/10

Thomas Cranmer was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1556.  The Napoleonic Code became French civil law in 1804.  An earthquake shook Tokyo in 1857, leaving more than 100,000 dead.  On their third attempt, 3,200 civil rights marchers succeeded in marching from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965.  And in 1970, Yugoslavian ski jumper Vinko Bogotaj crashed on a jump at the Ski-flying World Championships in Oberstdorf, West Germany.  Film of the crash became a fixture of American pop culture as it was used in the opening sequence of a programme called The Wide World of Sports for over twenty years, to illustrate "the agony of defeat".

Born today:  Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), Modest Mussorgsky (1839-1881), Brian Clough (1935-2004), and Gary Oldman (1958).

It is Independence Day in Namibia.

213 comments:

  1. Good morning wonderful world I am so glad to part of you.

    When sometime later, I have had breakfast, I may well find myself in disagreement with you about your ideas on equality and thus I may change me mind.

    Oh by the way, I may have forgotten to say....

    ....recently Montana I'm much attracted to you.............in fact I don't suppose you would like to lean your wonderful tits my way, would you......you wonderful young miss.


    Montana you are a fine young woman and I should have been chuffed to find myself in your company had I not been such a ......

    ....I'd like to claim innocence but that would be an abuse of the language.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I tell you what my friends, there has been much proper and genuine angst on UT recently about what it means to be on the left.....

    ...............for me it's an uncertain future but it has to include "collectivism" and "We" as part of its defining characteristics/vocabulary and language and thereby it's meaning.

    I cannot drink or talk or have sublime sex alone - there is for me nothing but emptiness in the "I".

    ReplyDelete
  3. I sometimes wish it were not the case - but the fact of the matter is I like girls. By which I mean grown up ladies.

    I like the way in which their bits occupy space and when the silence is deafening, they shout intelligible things. Truth is I like all there is to like about them.

    Fuck it's only 7.43 am here in Yorkshire and that's about 77 minutes before the Off sho opens. I'd best take me dogs for a walk

    ReplyDelete
  4. good morning everyone. Happy vernal equinox.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cheers Lavatris - I knew I felt different this fine morning but couldn't quite work out why.

    Nothing like a vernal equinox, now I come to think about it, to put me in fine sorts.

    I hope you are enjoying your time here on UT.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shall we try that again - Lavartis. Sorry it was a long and lubricated night..

    ReplyDelete
  7. I caught the very beginning of yesterday evening's events here and have looked through them this morning. I am not suggesting that anyone should rekindle the flames, so you can skip this post, but it wasn't a pretty sight.

    I have mentioned before that I have difficulty remembering names and pinning them to faces or online personalities, which may be why I do not remember old animosities between blurred and cloudy antagonists.

    What seems to have been shown is that we are more easily able to act and react at a personal level than we ever manage collectively. No doubt this is evolutionarily necessary and the further from ourselves the hurt seems, the less we are able to feel it. It is the old story of one English person slightly injured in Thai bus crash making the news in England, but one hundred Thais killed in Indian train crash not quite managing to register.

    I simply have no clue about old feuds here or over there, other than in some very vague sense and only in very few cases. This might mean that Hank could find the fact that I exchange ideas with scherfig in some way undermining because I am not showing solidarity, although I am not suggesting this is the case.

    The problem is that in real life situations involving family and friends, people we work with, neighbours and artificial groups like pubs and clubs, we have arguments, squabbles, animosities and a hundred and one other frictions and punch-ups, figurative and real.

    Would we, though, want to have a stand-up, high-volume, bitter argument with our spouses, with all the aggregated knowledge each about the other, in the aisles of Waitrose or on the carriage of a train?

    This is not to criticise anyone here, but to note that although we are all privately tapping on our keyboards, alone or just with people who are close, we are sending our messages into a very large and public arena, with the added bounty of having them recorded and stored forever.

    I have said before that I wonder about the value of blogging and writing and commenting and about the notion that online communities, whatever their shape and structure, are really the best way to go to achieve what might be seen as common goals and ideals.

    A lot has been said about CiF and its apparent corruption and demise as a community of ideas. Plenty of people, though, still say it is the best political forum in the world.

    I have to say that just a few days of being absent from its varied delights leaves me with no pangs of regret or withdrawal symptoms. I began by checking what was going on and now simply occasionally look at the front page and notice how few comments there are overall, apart from the obvious threads designed to provoke temporary mindless outrage.

    Anyway, to stop wandering and get back to where I started from, I hope that everyone can accept each other as frail and fickle and imperfect and, essentially, human and that yesterday's events will not lead to people walking away, whoever they might be.

    For me, I am still left wondering about how and why anyone should use the internet.

    Apparently, the most popular places are sites like Facebook, which apparently is just filled with teenagers shouting "Look at me!" and partially undressing and getting drunk and pretending that their online friends, numbering in the thousands, are all people who would rush to help them when in need.

    Perhaps that is the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lavartis/ Deano
    Good morning - and what a beauty it is too. Hows your hangover Deano? I see you were up until the early hours.

    What a sweetie Habib is...good tunes too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AB

    It makes me ponder on the possibilities of the hermit life. What can we hope to achieve in the wider world if we fall apart so easily between ourselves - and thats not just about the UT, it seems to be a feature of human relationships where ever you look.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sheff - my lovely, my 'hangover' is more imagined than real.

    I doubt that you would be happy with the hermit's life. I have lived alone in a field for a decade, I love it but most folk cannot abide by the noise of their own shadow.

    I happen to like my own company(and me dogs of course), whilst adoring my kids and sometime and people at large. but then i am a well known tosser....

    lots of xxx the off shop is now open.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Sheff, hi guys. Atomboy, very good. The classic expression of parochialism during a disaster report is generally claimed to be some variation on the supposed headline

    Titanic sinks: Aberdeen man drowns

    but it has been shown to be a myth -

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=26098&sectioncode=1

    Unfortunately the feuds on Cif and here are not mythical and I too can't remember who's fighting with who and I haven't the energy or inclination to find out. I suspect it would all have blown over had Bru not dropped that toxic post on here and then actually bragged about it, but the solution to being upset or irritated by someone on the web is to keep at a polite distance.

    Life's too short and as Sheff says there are plenty of things to do in the real world! Hate takes up energy; let it go, let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ps - I am a definite when you get the Yorks UT get together organised.

    I have money (more than two shillings) and a warm smile, I hope you will like me as much as I like you Sheffield three.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wisdom Ed - be great to see you in Sheffield.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Sheffpixie

    'we fall apart so easily between ourselves'

    Very true.

    I was thinking yesterday that if a proverbial Martian came across the human race tomorrow, it would conclude that on the 'con' side we devote a lot of time and energy to killing each other, but the 'pro' is that we have made huge strides in science, both pure knowledge of our selves and the universe, and applied knowledge to make our lives just a little more bearable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. W"Titanic sinks: Aberdeen man drowns"

    ...First mate was from Hull ( Yorks ) Light....ler?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ Atomboy.
    I often think blogging,posting opinions etc is pissing in the wind or shouting into the void. maybe it acts as some kind of primal scream mechanism, but isn't that what the corporate plutocrats would want? Venting anger online,not on the streets, associating with 'friends' only virtually, never gathering in real life in sufficient numbers to effect change or scare the powers-that-be...
    FWIW,I reckon we have to see the net as potentially liberating,but also as a possible containment pen. We can't take it as the be-all-and-end-all,not by a long chalk (after all, it is predominantly money-driven, page hits,monetisation,advertising etc). Use it to organise action in the real world, don't get sucked into merely passive opinion-voicing in the void.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...and applied knowledge to make our lives just a little more bearable...."

    I'd want to hope the Martians concluded that "we" (the non sociopaths) applied our knowledge to make others lives just a little more bearable.....otherwise there was little point to the business of human life. Collecting money together in one place is simply for arses.

    Right that's me done for now, me self imposed internet quota of 3Gb is nearly up.

    Let us not depress each the other - 'tis a fine collective who care to comment here..

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sheff

    In part it seems to be that we are always more ready to point out and criticise other people's frailties than we are to admit our own.

    At least a part of posting online is for reward and recognition, for people telling us we are right and the small, warm waves of adulation we sometimes get. Of course, this bolstering and approval of our own thoughts and egos goes hand-in-hand with having to do battle with those who are not like us and who we see getting the world wrong.

    Viewed from their position, though, we are the idiots, the threats, the people who cannot see that they are wrong and stand in need of correction.

    We look for love and warmth and security and have to attack anything which seems to want to take that away.

    In the real world, with people we actually care about, we should find it easy to forgive and to understand and accommodate, but pretty often we don't. How much harder is this process in a pretend world, from which we can so easily withdraw, abandon and simply walk into another where our slate is clean?

    I know you do things on a personal level, Sheff, to help the world become a better place according to how you see it, which is probably shared by everyone here.

    I don't think any of us will be involved in any way other than that - personal and individual - in shaping how the world changes and operates.

    There will be no collective action, no uprising or mass events or even simple concerted agreement of how small, particular actions could be conducted under a co-ordinating umbrella.

    The supremacy of the careless individualism and the tight tribalism (mutual self-interest: they know they would each sacrifice the others for themselves) of those who have money and power is balanced by the atomisation of the mass of people and their inability to see each other as anything more than competitors and enemies.

    The working-classes have been taught to be ashamed of themselves and to long and lust to be ersatz middle-classes. There is no reciprocity: the poor idolise the rich and the rich despise the poor.

    We think our arguments will change things but we are arguing against propaganda which sits and settles in the mind far more easily and comfortably than reason.

    We say we want a better world according to our ideas and that the people who run things are wrong. They say: "OK, then. If you don't like it, fuck off and do something about it."

    We manage to fuck off, but we fail at the doing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Alisdair

    Yes, I agree. The problem is that I also see the internet aiding in a process whereby we actually become unable to properly interact with other people in real life.

    We assume that because it must be the best mass communications tool to which we have ever been allowed access, it will save us. The problem is we still have tiny, scattered voices and the little noises we do make are overlaid and obliterated by those who have the biggest megaphones and speakers, like the police dispersing a riot or the neighbours making our lives a misery.

    The difficulty is, the small numbers who congregate here are a reflection of the problem. We are in a tiny minority, however right and righteous we feel.

    Edwin Moore

    True enough.

    The problem is that, as Kurt Vonnegut says, most Americans could not find their own country on a globe.

    The problem is, we are all Americans now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AB
    In the real world, with people we actually care about, we should find it easy to forgive and to understand and accommodate, but pretty often we don't. How much harder is this process in a pretend world, from which we can so easily withdraw, abandon and simply walk into another where our slate is clean?

    I think this is right, although my agreement is tinged with gloom. The net probably does perpetuate atomisation and as you say doesn't encourage actual interaction but gives us the illusion we have a voice.

    I think the net is functioning more like Alisdair's 'containment pen' at the moment although when it first appeared it did seem to have huge liberating potential.

    I see it in the way children so often play these days - by themselves on some electronic gizmo or other - even when they're in a room full of other kids. A bit scary and depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Atomboy - my dear friend I am not an American. And have no wish to become one, or associated with one (save my lovely friend Montana)

    I am nonetheless embarrassed at my own ignorance.

    You might have thought that at 63 years of age I would have known that it is against the law in England to serve alcohol before 10 am on a Sunday. The youngsters in my local off shop took great joy in learning me the law.

    I can only plead - plonker. And whilst I am at it, record my admiration at the quality of your posts of late.

    I would have wished that your idea of the "moderation watch" had been more widely picked up. I think there is great merit in the learning potential of an archive of the CiF nonsense.

    I don't feel righteous, I do feel that my yet to be born neighbours and grand kids have a brighter future if they lean leftwards. There is so much more fun in the "We" than in the "I".

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sheff - ..."I see it in the way children so often play these days - by themselves on some electronic gizmo or other - even when they're in a room full of other kids. A bit scary and depressing"...

    This is the bit that is worrying me about me great nephews and nieces and the possibilities for my yet to be born grandkids from me sons.

    I got away with what would now be considered child cruelty -

    "....there is no fucking way on god's earth you are having a telly in your room...........go fuck yourself I wouldn't even think about giving /paying for driving lessons until you are at least 25...........go have a wank the testosterone is blinding your eyes......." etc

    Should I live long enough I have may have difficulty with me grand kids, albeit me kids (and their partners) and me like each other very much.

    The nasty divide between parents and kids induced by contemporary Capitalism hurts...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yesterday's spat was dispiriting - it explains why the left suffers from 'people's front of Judea syndrome!

    I suppose if I have a (self chosen) purpose in my life its to encourage a belief that we can change things, that we do have the power to do so.

    I do not/cannot divide the world into people I can convince and those I cannot. After all despite my politics I am the graduate daughter of two graduate parents and that makes me 'middle class' by ordinary British definition anyway, so how can I reject anyone for having 'middle class' traits as unwinnable?

    As a Marxist I believe implicitly in the vital role of the working class in changing society but just as men can and have had a role in fighting for women's rights, I do not reject people on the basis of their class identity alone. People can change their views and do. The important thing is that people who are of bourgeois origins support the working class struggle in a spirit of equality not in a 'I know what's best for you because I'm educated etc etc' way. (The Graun often does this btw)

    There are many working class peple who because of their earning power, see themselves as bourgeois they are not, they have bourgeois pretentions sure but if things go wrong (and I wouldn't wish this on anyone) they rapidly find out that they are not because they depend on selling their labour power to maintain that 'bourgeois' lifestyle.

    Its a case of 'If the working class do not have their own philosophy they have the philosophy of the ruling class' (Karl Marx).

    So I do not believe it is right to rant off against individuals unless it can be shown they really have done something that fundamentally damages the class (like scabbing or supporting anti w/c movements for example). Even then there is a case for trying persuation first.

    Some of you fellow oldies will remember Enoch Powell's notorious 'rivers of blood' speech and the support it got from some sections of the working class. These people could see that immigration drives down wages and threatened their standard of living. They could not see that immigration is used by employers to increase their profits and the real enemy was not the immigrant but the employer. Only the employer benefits here not the immigrant and certainly not the class as a whole.

    Someone pointed out here or on Cif how racism and immigration are often conflated when they are completely different issues. I think this case illustrates the point.

    So I will, except in extreme circumstances try to desist from ranting and try to 'patiently explain' my views in an attempt to win people over. On the internet this is even more important as the target of the rant (or the patient explanation) is not the only one reading it. Some revolutionary discipline is needed.

    Just a thought...

    ReplyDelete
  24. ...."The problem is we still have tiny, scattered voices and the little noises we do make are overlaid...."

    You are saying interesting things our kid - but let us always remember the geometric progression. A thing of wonder.

    .....one becomes two and when doubled 2 becomes 4 then 8 and 16 and 32 and 64 and here we are at 128 and thus 256....

    ....and in the space of a long spit, and two quick wanks, we might just have the world on our side..

    ....at my silly time of life I have to travel in hope.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "....Just a thought...

    A thought well worth reading.......young miss.

    Thanks Anne xx.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Brilliant from Mary Warnock on the Observer panel on strikebreaking:

    "Solidarity is not a familiar concept any more; the trades unions are no longer respected; strikes are now judged according to the principle of utility and are condemned by the Greatest Happiness Test. Margaret Thatcher changed our thinking."

    Ahhhhh, after repairing to the pub to watch the rugby yesterday, I am actually quite glad that I did not log on after the Grand Chelem was confirmed to see what was going on. Because, as I have said before, I dislike conflict. Now, I know sometimes that conflict is necessary, productive (when I screw up my small reserves of courage and try to get involved) - but having read over yesterday's thread, sometimes it isn't...

    Dunno what to say, really. Good points made today. Think I may be relying too much on CIF/UT and ignoring/putting off other stuff I should be doing. Better find a better balance, eh?

    Am going to play with mosaic grout. Will no doubt be back later, paint-splattered and semi-set, after the footy...

    Still not sure exactly what time it is. That also a bit confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Deano

    Thank you. As for silly laws, here are a couple you might like, although I will make no claims for their veracity. The last one particularly seems somewhat suspect.

    It is lawful to kill a Scotsman in York if he is carrying a bow and arrow.

    It is illegal for taxi drivers to carry rabid dogs or corpses.

    In Hereford you can shoot a Welsh person on a Sunday, with a longbow, in the Cathedral Close.

    You can shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow in Chester, inside the city walls and after midnight.

    It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.

    A taxi driver must ask passengers if they are suffering from plague or smallpox.

    A pregnant woman may relieve herself anywhere she likes, including (if she requests) in a policeman's helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  28. For me personally - false premise:

    "Solidarity is not a familiar concept any more; the trades unions are no longer respected; strikes are now judged according to the principle of utility and are condemned by the Greatest Happiness Test. Margaret Thatcher changed our thinking."

    and conclusion...

    Thatcher did not change my thinking, nor my identity or sense of purpose. The Fucking cow , however, did..........................upset me

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with the geometrical progression as well, Deano, but wonder whether it might be better applied in the real world.

    There was a Doctor Who episode which demonstrated this potential, especially when it was done underneath the radar of the oppressive power - something which the internet does not readily permit.

    Anyway, back to work. Just posting in odd breaks which I pretend to deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AB
    A pregnant woman may relieve herself anywhere she likes, including (if she requests) in a policeman's helmet.

    I once made that request of a policeman on a demo - he was not amused and and didn't believe it was still actually the law.

    Is there anywhere you're allowed to shoot an Englishman?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh, and I think the policeman is supposed to cover you with his cloak whilst you pee into his helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I know I'm a recent arrival here but last night's ding-dong - the sheer spine-crushing, self-regarding, infantile tedium of it - was a fuckin' disgrace.

    Anonymous bitching is pointless and craven. Stick your name on the board with an H&S next to it, and then have a go. It'll make a difference, trust me.

    That aside, I wanted to say that the danger to CiF is the Wikipedia malaise, which prizes consensus above greater approxiamtions to truth - one in which the loudest voices and most obsessive contributors become the arbiters of that consensus.

    And here too, of course, anonymity casts its cloak of tedious, baleful vitriol. If one can't attach a genuine name to a comment, why the fuck should anyone read it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi PeterB, kinda agree.

    Atomboy, despair will not help but some realism might? Cooperation is more basic than competition, there was a prelapsarian world once.

    Remember Fight Club.

    Also 'capitalism' not an enemy in and of itself necessarily. Make use of it.

    Selfish gene undermines the selfish ind organism but is only another and not the only level of analysis.

    Have hope.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If anyone here has yet to read Andrew Greer's novel 'A Story of a Marriage', make sure you do.

    It's the best novel I've read in a long time - as good as Graham Swift's 'Last Orders' - and sooo much better than the contrived creations of the depressingly popular Ian McEwan.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi all - flying visit.

    Had a bit of an emergency for the past couple of days (which I will no elaborate on further because I wouldn't want a certain stalker traducing it into a nasty post on waddya.)

    All is good-ish now though, everyone fit and well as can be expected. Won't be around much as need to concentrate on family things, but will pop in to say hi.

    Catch up soon. x

    ReplyDelete
  36. McEwan gets me. His novels are always about stuff I actually know about. This most recent one Solar. I was part of an EU funded project on environmental attitudes and behaviours (UK, France, Germany, Portugal, Italy) back in the early 90s.

    And, at the moment, since I am posting I find it hard to get down to reading which is a bit annoying yeah???? But my choice so I just put up with it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Continuing the leisure theme, anyone with kids should make it to the Aqua Park at Le Touquet.

    It hosts the best ever water slide - The Twister. Only real men (and women) and eight-year olds ever do it more than once.

    The speed of descent approximates maximum velocity and the spinning denouement generates Gs that sports bikers can only dream of.

    It's the finest and quickest route to childhood rediscovery my side of the Channel.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I lived in Santa Cruz Cal for a while and it had a boardwalk. The kids had season tickets. I'm too much a scaredy cat (risk analyst etc) so by and large it does not float my boat.

    Hi Phillipa, : )

    ReplyDelete
  39. Peter, what's an H&S?
    Personally, I'm okay with people being anonymous/using pseudonyms if they want. It's their call: I don't, and my profile pics are of me (and even recent,too) but that's just my take. I'll post stuff, and if others object,feel free, and then I either stand by what I say, or if proven wrong or mistaken, apologise.It's free and unfettered dialogue that matters:
    "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John Stuart Mill.
    Enough navel-gazing, anyhow.
    Am off to Split fairly soon: anyone been there, and if so, any recommendations?

    ReplyDelete
  40. pen - , "there was a prelapsarian world once."

    giz a break...........you would have helped yours and future readers more quickly to your understanding if you had said "innocent world"

    why the fuck should I have to look you up on the OED - you on the fegging staff?

    ReplyDelete
  41. BB - should they/it prove difficle tell it to fuck off.

    xx.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alisdair - interesting contributions as always, but the addition of a few words make it.....

    "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion or ignoring it is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John Stuart Mill.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, that's just brilliant!!!

    I was going to do a piece on my blog about the t'interwebz, communities, potential for action etc, but you've all gone and said it all already. And at least 3.8 times better than I was going to...

    Anyway, morning all!

    ReplyDelete
  44. pen

    I don't despair particularly or generally and, like everyone else (I imagine) post to set down or clarify thoughts or just to make idle observations or in the hope that others might pick up an idea and adapt it to their needs or wants.

    Anyone who has had dealings with small children will know that it is almost impossible to get them to tidy up when things are in a big mess. They cannot see how to make order from chaos: it is all too confusing and too much.

    However, if you start things off by separating the mess into, for example, clothes, soft toys, books, electronic toys and so on, they begin to see order and can start to cope.

    The person who started NO2ID said that the only way to make anything happen with online action is to concentrate completely on one thing. You have to avoid distractions and subsidiary concerns. You have to be single-minded and dedicated in the pursuit of this one aim.

    The problem both here and elsewhere is that we all see a massed entanglement of problems and a blurred and mobile image of how things could be. We are rendered impotent by the plenty of the perceived problems and the paucity of our vision and capabilities.

    The only way is to separate them out and form pressure groups to concentrate on one thing alone. We can, of course, join more than one of these, but within that particular group, nothing should distract from its aim.

    This has the downside of leading to potential unintended consequences due to the artificiality of isolating one thing from another, to which it is probably actually quite stickily attached. If you don't, though, you have to go back to square one as outlined above.

    If anyone saw the Michael Cockerell and Michael Portillo programmes on BBC2 yesterday evening - I vaguely listened to them in the background - you may have mixed feelings of hope and despair.

    Portillo went back to see the children with whom he had spent a week pretending to be able to live like a poor person some years ago. The eldest girl, now almost grown up and a student was studying something like Sociology, English and History combined.

    She told Portillo that politicians were too remote and posh to be relevant to anyone in the real world. He asked whether she was going to vote. After saying that she did not know there was an election, she said no, there was no point.

    Cockerell asked various former Home Secretaries what they had been told by the permanent secretaries and staff at the Home Office. Mostly, they said that the overriding culture was that crime would always continue to rise and there was nothing which could be done about it.

    So, we at least share hopelessness with both the next generation and with the establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "....If one can't attach a genuine name to a comment, why the fuck should anyone read it?..."

    Which begs the question why the fuck would you post that here?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Alisdair:

    'Peter, what's an H&S?'

    Head and Shoulders.

    Delightful quote from Mill. Sure, people have their motives for remaining anonymous, but I question the merit of it.

    I can see how it may embolden some who might otherwise remain silent, but in the main I think it encourages whiplash-like, doggerel contributions that kill the very 'free and unfettered dialogue' you seek.

    If you're prepared to say it, why not sign it?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shampoo? now v confused. could be paint fumes. was actually very scared at having to have a 'headshot' up next to my full name when I ventured ATL. scared, genuinely. fortunately managed to find pic that i don't much look like anymore, and people were sweet. but don't underestimate shyness as a reason for being a bit cagey wi' one's identity...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Morning James.

    I've not had the opportunity to say hello/welcome (according to your sense of chronology) before.

    I trust that you will have the joy that I have had here on UT.

    Breath easy, and it's fun, and educative. I learn something worthwhile everyday.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Peter

    i work for a government dept. and sometimes talk about it. I would be out of a job pretty sharpish if I did it under my own name. And come the run up to the election I wouldn't be able to give a political opinion at all.

    Have decided to leave in the summer, then I can get my life back.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonimity does allow a more 'honest' testimony Peter, sometimes. Obviously it could also be used to tell outrageous pork pies, and insidious distortions.

    Now I have a pretty rare surname, I've said what my line of work is, and where I live, so although my user name is anonymous it would take a determined soul about 10 mins to find me IRL. As Scherf pointed out yest.. Just that he didn't reveal his own details, whereas I did. Now I just hope that my employers don't go back thru my comments and call me to account for some of the more forthright ones! Who knows, a malicious soul could easily find them and mail them along. So it goes...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Phillipa & Sheff, exactly & exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  52. peter bracken

    If you're prepared to say it, why not sign it?

    There are several things here, although your idea that being anonymous may foster a more carefree attitude to being abusive or rude may have some truth.

    I have sufficient disregard for my own name and identity that I could not care less what people call me. I actually find it funny when filling in forms and signing things to think that for some people this is a process of publicly defining who they are and separating themselves from others.

    There is also the fact that, given how popular some names are, we would not know which John Smith had written what.

    Along with this, let's say Kurt Vonnegut (now dead, obviously) says something publicly which I think is clever and meaningful. On the same day, someone else says essentially the same thing using slightly different words, but this other person is unknown - say Whipple139.

    Does the fact that Vonnegut, who can be identified and quizzed, make it more valid than the anonymous Mr or Mrs Whipple?

    Of course, on the basis of this:

    If one can't attach a genuine name to a comment, why the fuck should anyone read it?

    you will probably not have read the above.

    Why did my stupid parents have to have such an idiotic name? The Atomboys of Paraguay, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Peter - I do so every time I post, (it's an abstraction a metaphor sort of thing) it will be of no difficulty to the authorities to find me if they wish.

    Why would I make it easy for you, and yours, to remove me from my happiness living as a tramp in Yorkshire?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Deano30

    good morning to you too.

    And thank you

    (my short time here has already been, let's say, 'quite eventful', but also educational too)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Oh come on, Philippa. CiF is not a dating agency or a kiss 'n tell forum, where identity might compromise: it's a platform for the exchange of opinion.

    Anonymity carries the suggestion that one is not able to stand by one's views. And it encourages outlandish, rash and downright abusive comment.

    All of which are counterproductive.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Peter.

    It's not that I don't trust you - more that I wonder about your ability to have two quick wanks in the distance for long spit to fall.

    ReplyDelete
  57. No, you 'come on' Peter, out of 3million visitors to Cif some are gonna be a bit unstable, and of tthat sub group some are gonna be nasty and vindictive, down to forging personal relationships then publicly embarrassing people, or cyber stalking and endangering peoples jobs. Just hope it doesn't happen to you..

    ReplyDelete
  58. deano:

    Why should you have to trust me? It's your worrying inverted narcisism that nags at me.

    Atomboy:

    "I have sufficient disregard for my own name and identity that I could not care less what people call me. I actually find it funny when filling in forms and signing things to think that for some people this is a process of publicly defining who they are and separating themselves from others."

    Well for something so funny and banal, you seem peculiarly sensitive to it.

    turminderxuss:

    Makes you wonder how public figures cope, eh?

    Don't buy it. The sensitivity, the preciousness, the latent dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well, please feel free to ignore my ramblings Peter but this viper in the body politic will remain (largely) annonymous for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  60. dating? not sure what you mean - just that i don't feel comfortable with people 'looking at me', so i picked my avatar accordingly. would you feel comfortable with full name / photo being mandatory on the site? I wouldn't. It's not 'shy' as is giggling, tittering, flirting or anything, in my case, it's 'shy' as in not liking being looked at. feeling very uncomfortable with that. so why tempt fate? hence piccie.

    anonymity may "encourage... outlandish, rash and downright abusive comment" by the anonymous, but openness by one poster can reap the same from another. whether that's putting your picture up (and imogen, amongst others, got some nasty in her direction for using a photo) or sharing a personal story (as disordered has recounted, and I've come across meself).

    it may seem weird to you, but it doesn't feel quite so bad to take abuse when they don't know what i look like. which is now 'out of the bag' a bit. which is genuinely scary for me.

    just saying re: me, is all.

    (and identity being compromised might well be an issue for professional reasons, as sheff points out, and for BB, for example).

    ReplyDelete
  61. peter bracken

    Well for something so funny and banal, you seem peculiarly sensitive to it.

    No, you are confusing the fact that I have argued against your idea with the notion that this must mean I am sensitive.

    The two are not the same at all.

    Names may be important to you as identifiers and signals of credibility or otherwise. The same may not apply to other people.

    Because of your line of thought, we might assume that you are using your real name here. It may or may not be the case. One way to test this would be to look up Peter Bracken on search engines or whatever, coupled with the fact that you say you live and work in France and that you used to do something for New Labour.

    I have to say that from my own point of view, I really could not be bothered to do that because I am not even slightly interested.

    You could come back here and post as someone else who did or did not appear to be giving their real name and I would still simply look at what you said and not try to use that as a springboard or platform to find out who you are, which does not intrigue me at all.

    This almost sounds like a variation of the cult of me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Above post deleted simply because it replicated the one above which did not seem to go through.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  65. ": it's a platform for the exchange of opinion.

    of course it is Peter that's why Bertrand Russell said (words to the effect)..........................beware the twat's who argue ............from credential ...with things like names..........they often make no more sense than your average tosser.......

    I'm so simple that I grew up admiring his wisdom - what do you know that I don't?

    I take the immature view that what you say stands or falls on it's own .............merit

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I mean, fair play to all those who post under their real names / with a pic, but not everyone who posts (semi-)anonymously does so because they are afraid to stand by their opinion, or because they just want to snark. There are many reasons, 'tis all.

    paint fumes definitely having an effect now.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "deano:

    Why should you have to trust me? It's your worrying inverted narcisism that nags at me."


    P. Sorry to nag you kid - need a pause between ales. When I'm not so inside out I'll try to respond. Shouldn't take long.

    So many new folk here that I loose track of who be who.............Peter you be the soul who worked for Nu Labour?"

    If i not said welcome then now.........

    ReplyDelete
  69. Afternoon All

    My post of a few minutes ago seems to have
    disappeared into cyber-space.Obviously wasn,t
    meant to be!

    Hope things have calmed now.

    @Sheffpixie-that post to Peter B at 13.39pm was a bit of a low blow wasn,t it?Even if it is him it seems a bit vindictive to post it.After all
    if the truth be known we,ve probably all got a
    few 'skeletons' lying about.Thought better of
    you!

    ReplyDelete
  70. PB - if I wasn't in love with you, I would have to enquire..............how be you know the tosser's pic and words be the same?

    ReplyDelete
  71. "I know I'm a recent arrival here but last night's ding-dong - the sheer spine-crushing, self-regarding, infantile tedium of it - was a fuckin' disgrace."

    It's not just an opinion blog, Peter. Some of the people here have met each other. Have you never been to a party where people suddenly turn on each other; lifelong friends in some cases? I'd find it surprising if ding-dongs didn't take place occasionally. It wasn't a disgrace; just life as normal.

    ReplyDelete
  72. What if it were me, sheffpixie? It would hardly matter, would it? And is there any point my denying it?

    I could give you chapter and verse on my background, but that would miss the point. Which is that, contrary to my charge against anonymity being the cult of 'me', it is a plain vanilla, old-fashioned cult of I-stand-by-what-I say.

    ReplyDelete
  73. deano - i actually don't care one way or the other. i mean, i assume they are (seems both less trouble for him and more polite for me), but whether they are or not doesn't trouble me greatly. it's my presentation, for better or worse, that can trouble me. and don't really think he's a tosser, either (although now feel bad because i assumed who you were talking about from that - although, who knows? maybe deano's in love with peterb! hehehehehehe)

    (sorry)

    (fumes)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Paul

    Your right it was mean and i'll delete it now - although I only did it to show how vulnerable we all are where the net is concerned. There is really no privacy left at all and I for one don't care to be exposed on all sides to anyone who might want to have a poke around.

    Peter

    I didn't put it up in a mean spirited way but for the reasons I describe above. However as has been pointed out it does look mean spirited so I'll delete it now. I'm sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  75. paul - if I ain't said before I say it now welcome

    "....if the truth be known we,ve probably all got a few 'skeletons' lying about.Thought better of you!.."

    Perchance I got it wrong, I thought it predictable that you have name shared with a would be tosser you say not mea be that case.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hi Martillo : ))

    God I get so tired of all this.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I have no reputation, no job, no prospects, nothing much to lose anymore.

    I just do not care much these days.

    Sometimes I think I'll just fuck off and let you guys ????????

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oh and just to make a point

    Dr Jonathan Chase SE London

    ReplyDelete
  79. "PB - if I wasn't in love with you, I would have to enquire..............how be you know the tosser's pic and words be the same?"

    You wouldn't know for sure, deano. But what is the point of disguising our identities, unless we've something to hide? Transparency is so much healthier.

    Sheffpixie accuses me of being a rogue trader because she's googled my name (though I acknowledge she's deleted the post). She'd also have noticed that I'm married (apparently) to Martin Bell's daughter. Maybe I am.

    But those details are irrelevant; what matters is that I sign my posts as an attributal individual.

    It's an unexceptionable position to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  80. If one can't attach a genuine name to a comment, why the fuck should anyone read it?
    Fair enough, but as nobody's forcing anyone to read anything and nobody is reading Lord Summerisle's views on CiF and formulating party policy based upon them, then who needs my real name?

    Anyhoo ... I'm pseudonymous, rather than anonymous. In fact there are probably fewer Lord Summerisles posting on the internet than there are those posting with my given name, it being a reasonably common one.

    ReplyDelete
  81. paul

    my insensible/incomprhensible comment @ 14.09 tells me to say sorry I'm so pissed I;m falling over me words.

    I'll be back when I'm a little more sober.

    ReplyDelete
  82. But those details are irrelevant; what matters is that I sign my posts as an attributal individual.

    It's an unexceptionable position to defend


    Peter - i always sign my posts as an attributal individual - my (attribual) name is deano30

    ReplyDelete
  83. The point is that the sticking of names and pictures to an online identity as if that proves who we are does nothing of the kind.

    To open a bank account, I would need something like a passport and driving licence and maybe a utility bill. This only proves that I possess such documents, not that I am who I am claiming to be. They could be forgeries and the cursory glance by the bank staff is unlikely to spot it.

    Of course, we are persuaded to believe that ID cards will stop all this nonsense. They will certainly create an industry for fake ID cards, which will still not prove who we are.

    I could very easily create an online persona, either from pure invention or based on a smattering of facts.

    I could find out something about some lowly, inconsequential figure and use this as a basis, a mannequin or scarecrow to dress up in the clothes I decided I wanted paraded for all to see. I could take this e-creature out and hide behind its identity, claiming he or she was me and we could have such fun.

    It would not make it real and never will until we can all be tied irrevocably to one proved and officially sanctioned online presence.

    The reason I could not care less who Peter Bracken is or isn't is simply because by claiming to be someone, he does not make it so.

    His ideas, however, can stand or fall by themselves, without the need to flash a badge, like the gas man coming to read the meter of an elderly woman, secure behind her door-chain.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Peter
    Sheffpixie accuses me of being a rogue trader because she's googled my name

    I didn't accuse you - I simply pointed out that there is information about someone with your name up to nefarious doings. In fact I said I imagined it was not you.

    The problem for me is living in an increasingly hysterical and frenzied world where private information about everyone seems to be freely available on the net and hackers deploy their skills to find what isn't - its easy for really serious mistakes to be made and peoples lives damaged. Remember the bloke who was taken for Jon Venables in Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Your argument doesn't hold water Peter because you are not saying exactly who you are. You are dissembling, perhaps a hangover from your NuLab work? Fess up, name, location, personal details.

    All of that is out there for Phillipa and myself, with our genuine photos. Which we only ended up disclosing after going ATL, I asked if anon was an option, but apparently not, having seen Biteys snarking almost wished I hadn't bothered writing anything at all. Props to BB for putting up with his shit.

    Right enough Martillo, it is like a party, one where a coment of mine was overheard last night, mis construed as to it's target and I was treeatted to someone's opinion of me. Does it put me off? Yeah a bit. Luckily there are more Habib's, Philippa's, James's, Deano's et al, than there are those who choose to lash out hurtfully..

    ReplyDelete
  86. I wish it were not the case - but it is, I love this place and (most) of the quirky twats who post here.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "His ideas, however, can stand or fall by themselves, without the need to flash a badge, like the gas man coming to read the meter of an elderly woman, secure behind her door-chain."

    Indeed, so why not use your real name, Atomboy? Your invention suggests there is some point to it.

    You remind me of the relativist who argues that there is no objective truth (whilst making their own claim to the truth that there is no objective truth).

    turminderxuss: anonymity doesn't protect you from the sniping you deplore; and if you've already come clean with your identity, why bother with the pretence of another?

    As for me, born Manchester, single-parent family, one of five, former army officer, former Labour Party advisor, father of three, France-based equity analyst and trader.

    Happy?!

    ReplyDelete
  88. turm - our kid, I don't know much about these things but:

    ".... ATL, I asked if anon was an option, but apparently not, having seen ..."

    I think Montana's first ATL was incognito. She wrote as MontanaWildhack (albeit with pic)

    You would have to ask her about the rule of circa £80

    ReplyDelete
  89. @Sheffpixie

    Cheers for that.BTW big respect to you for
    the way you faced down'who know who' on
    'who know where' last night.That,s the way
    it should be done.Take on the 'bastards'
    over there rather than talk about it over
    here.

    @PeterBracken

    You don,t need to explain anything to anybody.
    Even though we may not agree on certain things
    i for one welcome the fact you are posting
    on UT.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Have been off-line this weekend and am just catching up on what seems to have been a very nasty day or two on the UT.

    Have just got up to Annetan @10:47. *Standing ovation*.

    Off for a while, probably back later.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Indeed, so why not use your real name, Atomboy? Your invention suggests there is some point to it.

    No, it suggests that to you, in the same way that you suggest there is some point in declaring your own identity.

    I suggest that it does not matter either way, so we may as well make a random decision of our own choosing.

    One of the reasons I changed names in the other place was because it seemed that people were sometimes agreeing with me because they had somehow identified with my name rather than what I might be saying at any given time.

    I wanted people to think about what was being said, rather than who was saying it.

    You are free to choose to use your own name and to think that this, of itself, creates more credibility in what you say.

    I am free to choose otherwise.

    I tend to see more shortcomings and problems with people attaching ideas to people than benefits.

    I would not think it proper for me to tell you that you should become anonymous online. That is your choice.

    We are all made up of various aspects and parts to create the whole. The considerate and courtly lover at home may be the overbearing slob in the pub, the infantile bully at work, the person of whimsy and Disneyesque fantasy in his own mind.

    I just don't happen to find the idea of thinking that attaching a name to my online persona gives it more credibility very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  92. My got..tle it's nearly 3 pm and asleep I be not. Time to pay attention to my nocturnal need.


    Peter - would it make more sense to us here if your National Insurance surname was Mandelson.

    What the fuck is the wise in the label.


    I suspect you live close by twots who earn a shilling from the world of adverts -- would you have your kid be partner to one of those manipulative persons?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thank you, Paul - friendships forged in adversity are the ones that last...

    ReplyDelete
  94. We are just people people. Each banally unique like peas in a pod, embodied and entangled.

    As a psychologist I find it hard to care much about values on any particular dimension, except for a collapsed totalisation on good/bad but that is so abstract that to you (collectively) it seems pointless. And so you turn again to squabble.

    I get round relativism by the same technique (at least in aprt) I just sum all poss truth statements according to epistemes and prune for coherence consistancy.

    But whateves eh guys

    ReplyDelete
  95. Actually atomboy I apply the same coherence consistancy conditions to myself. The point of psychology to me was as much about applying back on myself as on others. I re-made myself thru' science.

    "A selfish story" allows me to check back to ensure I am maintaining integrity. It's like a self check in a comp prog

    So speak for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I just sum all poss truth statements according to epistemes and prune for coherence consistancy.
    Gut feeling works for me too.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "One of the reasons I changed names in the other place was because it seemed that people were sometimes agreeing with me because they had somehow identified with my name rather than what I might be saying at any given time."

    Well, I'm grateful you have my interest at heart, Atomboy - me being incapable of distinguishing between commentor and comment.

    With that laudable objective in mind, maybe you should change your personna daily?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Hi pen, how's it going?

    It'd be a pity if you were put off, turminder. Would you stop going to parties because people got a little lairy at times?

    I'm not at all convinced of the need to be myself here or anywhere else. In any case, we've seen enough examples of people using personal information to attack others, so there's no chance I'll be sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I just don't happen to find the idea of thinking that attaching a name to my online persona gives it more credibility very interesting.

    I don't find it any more plausible either. Fine comment AB.

    ReplyDelete
  100. peter_bracken:

    Dear Peter,

    I feel you are beginning to push this issue to the point of suspicion. I "know" you from CiF, where your posts are quite reasonable -- from my point of view, even though i may often disagree with you. Please don't expect me to believe that you cannot see the point of people -- yes, people, not python-bots -- posting under handles and avatars. What evidence is there for you actually being whom you claim and that that is really your mugshot, apart from your say-so?

    I have a few quite close and trusted friends from twenty years ago who are known to me only under their nicknames. And no, they are not common criminals.

    kind regards,

    medve

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi Martillo, you know I wonder why I bother. Lets face it gut feeling will do won't? That's why you guys (some exceptions) don't know what the fuck to do?

    LordS don't be a jackass.

    I don't think you should be banned duh, but I'm no fan.

    Actually Martillo I'm dogtired, alienated from my family (essentially homeless but kinda with a roof over my head). I miss my kids who are in the US. And I am having to fend the mental health loonies off with one arm whilst I type with the other. I am surrounded by lecherous youth (well some of my closer peer group too) but have to be responsible and I am so lonely. Apart from that I am fine.

    I am actually. I am mostly serene.

    Love and thanks for your sincere concern.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "What evidence is there for you actually being whom you claim and that that is really your mugshot, apart from your say-so?"

    You don't, medve. I concede that point. But that certainly ain't your mugshot!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Fine, pen. Have it your way. Just trying to inject a bit of humour into the proceedings, something that's been lacking here over the last few days.

    But as I said, have it your way. Obviously you're too clever to bother having a laugh with the oikdom.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Sorry to hear you're feeling lonely pen. Keep battling the MH loonies! I wish you'd been able to share the houmour in Lord S's joke. I thought it was funny and not at all barbed.

    ReplyDelete
  105. It wasn't intended to be, Martillo.

    Look, pen. You're obviously in a bad space right now so let's forget it and move on, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Humour that is. And don't you start, Lord S. Let's go for calm today.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Happy to do so, Martillo.

    Just in case there was any confusion, the comment wasn't intended to be barbed.

    ReplyDelete
  108. By the way, yesterday was Father's day, at least it was in the Catholic world. Made me think of that great line from this.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Well, I'm grateful you have my interest at heart, Atomboy - me being incapable of distinguishing between commentor and comment.

    With that laudable objective in mind, maybe you should change your personna daily?

    The problem here seems to be that you are falling into the trap of thinking that I am somehow against you, simply because I do not agree with you.

    You began today by posting:

    Anonymous bitching is pointless and craven. Stick your name on the board with an H&S next to it, and then have a go. It'll make a difference, trust me. [...]

    And here too, of course, anonymity casts its cloak of tedious, baleful vitriol. If one can't attach a genuine name to a comment, why the fuck should anyone read it?

    I have not said that you cannot tell the difference between the comment and the person who makes it. I have simply made an observation.

    You then adopt what appears to be a slightly sneering and sarcastic tone, which seems to undermine your own argument that the quality of debate is better when people use their own names.

    I may be wrong. I may have misinterpreted the tone and you may have misread mine.

    The point is that this would probably be the case whether we were each using real names, or neither or a mixture.

    As for changing my name here, it seems pointless because there are too few people using this site for it to matter and it is the name by which many here knew me from a few years ago.

    I may change my name for the fun of it, I don't know. You could do the same, if you chose. Fill your boots, as they say - or used to.

    ReplyDelete
  110. And with that I'm off to take my cute but demanding avatar for a walk.

    ReplyDelete
  111. It is easy enough to occupy a "hurt" space, where everything will believed as barbed and directed at 'you' IRL. When we invest in virtual places such as here and Cif (cf James blog) perhaps more so.

    So, best wishes to all. I'm off for a walk.

    ReplyDelete
  112. So quick the accusations that I think I am more clever, dont joke etc.

    Why don't you check back?

    Not bothered too?

    In a bad place? Planet earth you mean? Human responses to GEC: Too little too late. J Chase (1996)

    The UK which told me my kids were not british? Like any of you care.

    Tiresome patronising and dumb. Of course you guys know what 'clever' is don't you.

    I don't think I am 'clever' or not more than many. I am fast (my RT is v fast and that is a measure of basic processing like in comps) and took a different path. That is all.

    Nowadays I find it a burden but one I cannot put down. It is reflex, I act well always as far as I can (of course I slip now and then). I read
    the basic human like a book which is why as recompense I offer myself for your edification. I am but a specimen pinned to a board, dissected to show the ligaments and structures of a 'person'.

    But I don't care, read me or not whateves

    ReplyDelete
  113. "You then adopt what appears to be a slightly sneering and sarcastic tone, which seems to undermine your own argument that the quality of debate is better when people use their own names."

    Sarcasm has it place in debate, and the odd sneer can be appropriate. Neither necessarily lower the quality of exchange.

    You still haven't addressed my point - which is that there is nothing to be lost by being transparent about one's identity, and everything to be gained. Besides, that is, some spurious reasoning about the cult of 'me' (whatever that means).

    We're born with a name. And we have a personal history. It's your masking of it - and your masquerading as someone you're not - that requires an explanation, not my injunction for posters to be who they are registered as being.

    ReplyDelete
  114. We care, pen. But you are making it hard for us (well, me at least) to find a way in and to relate to what it is that you're saying.

    I'm truly sorry that you are separated from your kids. So am I, and it's a horrible thing to have to carry around with you.

    ReplyDelete
  115. peter: I'm not concerned about concealing my personal history, but like sheff, I work in an environment where confidentiality is essential, and although I will use anonymous events from work if relevant to the topic under discussion, the last thing I want is some Miss Marple putting two and two together with the help of Google and making five from them.

    Not been online for a bit - been working backstage on Mack & Mabel - and am only slowly catching up with everything that's been happening: am looking forward to an evening with a bottle of red after a week of enforced abstinence. The show was phenomenal though.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Peter Bracken

    We're born with a name. And we have a personal history. It's your masking of it - and your masquerading as someone you're not - that requires an explanation, not my injunction for posters to be who they are registered as being.

    You seem to be caught up in wanting an official seal of approval for who you are, something like a dog-tag or ear-mark.

    Let's imagine two babies getting mixed up in a maternity unit, something which occasionally happens in fiction and the large-as-life real world.

    They each become officially registered and recorded, acknowledged and recognised, but each mistaken for the other.

    Has each of them become less real by this process or is it just that there has been a mistake with naming? Of course, they may then live their entire lives under some delusion that they are who they are not, with mis-matched parents and families, but all that has actually happened is that the labels have been changed.

    Besides, that is, some spurious reasoning about the cult of 'me' (whatever that means).

    It wasn't a line of reasoning, it was a short, throwaway comment.

    Let's call it the Michael Winner Syndrome and the catchphrase is "Do you know who I am?"

    You still haven't addressed my point - which is that there is nothing to be lost by being transparent about one's identity, and everything to be gained.

    I think I have addressed this point quite adequately, actually. Perhaps you could tell me the "everything" to be gained because I fail to see it. I fail to see that using what purports to be your real name but which cannot be proved achieves or enhances anything.

    In terms of losing something, there could be an obvious case. Let's say (as prompted your original post) we are all fallible and susceptible to saying things we would wish to take back, but are sometimes too clumsy and inattentive to notice we have let slip.

    We have used our real identities and have happily let the world know enough of our personal details for people to use Google maps and street view to peer through our figurative net curtains.

    Then, oh lummie and lordy me, we return from holiday to find that we have been robbed because we told people that we were going away.

    We already know that employers are now checking Facebook and such sites to scan through what potential indiscretions putative workers may have left smeared across the internet.

    We know that American (and probably European) agencies of the state are keeping watch on what people say and do online, especially in social networking sites. This may be regarded as an intrusion by some people or as a cuddly blanket of safety by others.

    There is nothing necessarily wrong with being in a minority, but look at CiF and see how many people choose to use their real names - or what could be their names, despite the fact that it is impossible to know.

    Although it seems to be dying out now, many of us may have grown up with people who were forever known by nicknames, often bestowed by their families at some sudden insignificant event, but which thereafter stuck. Were they forever after imposters masquerading as the real person, whose true identity could be wheedled and winkled out by checking the official signature on their birth certificate?

    So, perhaps you could give me a list of benefits which would accrue to me for the simple act of using my real name on a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  117. LordS I am not seeking to make enemies but you guys project? Attribution theory? I am a psychologist.

    Whatever, you again assume I am targetting yopu personally. I am not or only in passing. I have a cunning plan that has been a long time stewing. You have very local perspective, I do a bit but largely have a v global one.

    I am not trying to get too technical as Cif/Ut is not the right site but I have to sometimes or I would just say the same as you lot and why bother then? I do not want to post. I am an academic really (check out the thread on Cif Will Hutton) and should be a uni / advanced research institute btu due to the corruption and blah have been blacklisted.

    I am sorry to hear that you are seperated from your kids too but were they denied nationality? Mine were. Are you british? Then as a class member and by the rules you pay by (but not me) you are as guilty as any other of that category.


    But I am not going to comment here for at least a while.

    toodlepip

    ReplyDelete
  118. Oh and hi Boudican from last night.

    And PeterBracken, I think you are ok not that I agree with everything you post

    (I have most regular posters placed in social / real space)

    ReplyDelete
  119. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  120. We already know that employers are now checking Facebook and such sites to scan through what potential indiscretions putative workers may have left smeared across the internet.

    Employers are the problem I have with using my full name and head and shoulders shot. I recently had cause to say something not particularly complimentary about my employer over on CiF. I didn't identify myself as an their employee and the issue I was discussing is not in any way related to my position or duties with the company in question so there could be no accusations of sour grapes or confidentiality, but nevertheless I don't want anyone I work with to see my name next to what I said.

    Because while I'm happy to stand by it, I'd sooner not be standing by it in the dole queue.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Won't catch me using my real name.

    There are a lot of sickos post on CiF, Peter - not just the obsessive nutters like bitey, but also some nasty Redwatch types - and being on the receiving end of their ire as an anonymous poster is one thing; the damage they could cause if they actually knew my name IRL doesn't bear thinking about.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Atomboy, some cracking posts today.

    Peter, I don't use my real name and conceal intimate details for the same reasons as some others above: I don't want my work knowing what I post, and there are some serious weirdos out there (witness Bitey) who could do some damage if so inclined.

    Also I occasionally post some personal stuff that I wouldn't do if posting under my name, so the honesty argument cuts both ways.

    I've been 'thaumaturge' for quite a few years now on various fora. At first, I did play around a bit with an alter ego, which went from 'nicer than I really am' to 'nastier than I really am', but now I can't be arsed and what you see is what you get. (Except for the cold stare when I am displeased, which doesn't translate well on the net.)

    ReplyDelete
  123. 'We already know that employers are now checking Facebook and such sites to scan through what potential indiscretions putative workers may have left smeared across the internet'

    Well, indiscretions always happen. Pre-web I once said something whimsical about Rupert Murdoch on a Radio 2 show and went into whistling to work to be greeted with some odd looks and a hint that it hadn't gone down well in one quarter but it never amounted to owt - Murdoch himself would have never bothered his arse about some minion he'd never heard of cracking a joke.

    The funniest Facebook thing I can think of is actually a rceent instance on Cif where someone -Jay or Bitterweed? - spotted that one of Jessica Reed's Facebook friends had written a Cif piece.

    For the most part - and I really hate to say this - the Facebook stalking I've heard of consists of women hunting out info about their ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend or even the new girlfriend's exes and on to seeming infinity. Women can spend days and weeks of their lives doing this kind of thing looking for answers to questions that don't matter.







    I went out to Bridgeton Cross

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Princesschipchops

    Was going to post back to you in the 'early
    hours' following your response yesterday but
    it was a bit of a war zone here so decided not
    too.


    I accept saying 'Marxism is for losers' was a
    bit harsh.I certainly understand the attraction
    of marxism and wasn,t looking to disrespect
    anyone who embraces marxist ideology.However
    we live within a global capitalist system which
    may well be in trouble but still has plenty of
    life in it.The political shift to the Right
    howver is definitely a worry and i share your concerns that things could turn extremely ugly.So how should the Left be responding to this?

    My own view is that some sort of neo-social
    democratic model may be the way forward for
    the Left.But there are things that i,m just
    not sure about with regard to how that would
    evolve.I don,t know whether you read a post
    Montana wrote a couple of days ago when she
    talked about how capitalism is woven into
    the very fabric of US society.Well the same
    applies here in the UK and much more so than
    in the Scandinavian countries which as you
    know have a deep-rooted tradition of social
    democracy.

    The appalling structual inequalities we have
    in this country have got to be tackled at a
    political level.Dismissing New Labour as a bad
    dream that should never have happened it is
    nevertheless a fact that the Labour movement
    has thus far failed to tackle this without
    bringing the country to near bankruptcy.So
    how do we on the Left look at bulding a
    social democratic movement that won,t make
    the mistakes of the past?And will prove to be palatable to the British electorate.And
    that,s sadly where i tend to get stuck.
    Although if we had a PR system of voting
    rather than'First past the Post'then maybe
    that could be a step forward in creating the
    political environment where some real fundamental changes could be achieved.

    Anyway i hope you are feeling better after
    your ordeal last week.Take care!

    ReplyDelete
  125. "You seem to be caught up in wanting an official seal of approval for who you are, something like a dog-tag or ear-mark."

    I don't need a seal of approval, Atomboy, and nor do you: we have a name, provided at birth before we were even conscious of it. That's the beginning and end of my claim to my identity. I'm not trying to leverage anything - Jesus, sheffpixie has associated me with a crook - besides my authenticity.

    But you, meanwhile, feel the need to invent a name, in order to disguise who you are. You may have reason for the disguise (though your fear of being robbed is a bit far-fetched). But a disguise it is.

    The advantages of being honest about ones identity are legion.

    First, it requires us to be true to ourselves, assuming we're not inclined to caprice.

    Secondly, a true identity respects the exchange with our identifiable interlocutors - there is much less chance of their being short-changed by cameleon-like avatarists.

    Thirdly, our comments become a matter of record, not some fanciful indulgence that we can disown at some future date.

    Fourthly, a geunine signature is true to ourselves - the rank stupidity, the disengenuousness, the crassness, the brilliance (even) attaches to us, not some fake make-believe that we might dismiss as some ironical abberation.

    The defence of anonymity is precious, self-regarding and unwarranted, unless one is posting state secrets. And nobody here is, let's face it.

    ReplyDelete
  126. "There are a lot of sickos post on CiF, Peter - not just the obsessive nutters like bitey, but also some nasty Redwatch types - and being on the receiving end of their ire as an anonymous poster is one thing; the damage they could cause if they actually knew my name IRL doesn't bear thinking about."

    Let them do their worst, BB. There is no dignity, and only tarnished professionalism, in skulking behind an assumed identity.

    Either you sign up to a view or you don't. The purgatory of non de plume renders you a victim of your outlook, not a protaganist for it.

    I don't know you, but that's not you.

    ReplyDelete
  127. football good.

    "Let them do their worst, BB. There is no dignity, and only tarnished professionalism, in skulking behind an assumed identity. "

    well - first part - 'their worst' is pretty f-ing bad - and if you don't have to be 'out there', the why be?

    second - as this/cif is not a 'prof' site, but a comment site, what 'tarnish' is there in not citing full rank and honour? plenty of noms de plumes in portcullis...

    anyway - ia have probably shared more of me 'personal history' on CIF/UT than with any individual IRL. That is consistent - and whatever my online handle, that holds. Example - speedkermit is a cop - I don't care whether or not he uses his real name, as 'speedekermit' he is consistanent and has background. ditto BB. it is their consistency, not their name, that makes them. ditto disordered, paddyB, etc. like for peterb, whatever the name, it is the consistency of testimony, as it were, that counts...

    right - nap.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Turning up late to the party, (and also aware of not necessarily having been invited in the first place), here's my take on the identity thing:

    (I posted something similar a little while back on CiF)

    After thinking about it for a while, I decided to go with semi-anonymity on CiF (which is pretty much gone now, obviously), in that I didn't use my last name, but used my internet/e-mail 'handle', meaning that people who already knew me in a personal context could (and have) recognise(d) me if they put two and two together.

    (although, if I'm honest, I chose the username because I couldn't be arsed to think of anything better, and my actual name was already taken..)

    And while I sort of see what you're saying, Peter, I think that the t'interwebz is, in many ways an exception to the theory.

    Even after 15 + years, there's still so many grey areas regarding oversight, responsibility, legality etc, and the web is just so damned huge, that it's frankly a bit 'wild westish'.

    For example, the dreaded CiFWatch, as far as I can tell, tends to specialise in taking words largely out of context, and then drawing some quite vicious and exaggerated general conclusions from them, when they were probably only ever intended to be read in a very different, specific context...

    Unlike CiF, where we enter a discussion prepared to defend our position, and 'face our accusers', we may not know something like CiFwatch exists, and therefore not be even aware we're being accused of certain things, thus allowing the accusations to stand by default.

    If someone else reads a website like this, and then comes across us in our daily lives, I can think of many reasons why this would not be such a great thing.

    And the other thing is that we tend to think this won't happen because the internet is so huge, but it's sort of divided into quite small and distinct 'sub-communities', which often overlap and re-inforce each other, and worryingly leak into those we inhabit in the real world too, thus greatly increasing the chances of an undesirable outcome arising because of something we once said, and perhaps, have completely forgotten about ourselves.

    Anyway, I'm sure that's as clear as mud.

    Sorry folks. It's hot here...

    ReplyDelete
  129. Phillipa

    "Football good"

    You had to go and say it, didn't you!!??

    ReplyDelete
  130. See, you got me so mad, I've given you (an extra) 'ell!!!

    Ba dum tish!!!

    ReplyDelete
  131. we have a name, provided at birth before we were even conscious of it. That's the beginning and end of my claim to my identity.

    The problem with this is that it is perfectly possible, legal and commonplace to change this.

    For most women, their name will change when they get married, despite the fact that they can choose for this not to be the case. Some other people may simply choose to legally change their name for whatever reason they decide.

    The point is that by changing the label, the person has not mutated into something else.

    But you, meanwhile, feel the need to invent a name, in order to disguise who you are. You may have reason for the disguise (though your fear of being robbed is a bit far-fetched).

    Not altogether. The name I use was attached to me long before I posted here or in the other place. In fact, my wife uses it and has done for years.

    As for being robbed, not quite so far-fetched. There are people who look up Land Registry details for ownership of holiday cottages and main homes. Many people who spend just some of their time at their second homes are not liked by the locals, who tip off the robbers about when they are away from home.

    First, it requires us to be true to ourselves,

    You assume that people hide behind their avatars and are dishonest, which might simply say more about how you view people, rather than their motives.

    a true identity respects the exchange with our identifiable interlocutors

    Only, as I said before, if we are all forced to have some kind of official seal of approval in order to be allowed online. The fact that you have given yourself a name does not guarantee to me that you are who you claim to be.

    our comments become a matter of record

    Not in any way which has greater veracity than is now the case. My comments are a matter of record that I, masquerading according to you, as Atomboy said it. There may be hundreds lf other Atomnoys online, just as there may be hundreds of other Peter Brackens, none of them able to properly claim that they are the real McCoy.

    a geunine signature is true to ourselves

    Not in the slightest. An idea may be true to our thinking or we may change the idea given better or more convincing evidence. Putting a clumsy cross against our ideas does not make them any better or worse or prove any real claim that they are ours.

    The defence of anonymity is precious, self-regarding and unwarranted

    So, I would say, is your claim that we should all use a label which is mutable.

    If a child is born into a tribe which does not use names and keeps no records, does he or she not exist?

    We hear about celebrities booking flights incognito because of the problems which would otherwise result and maybe they would like to shop in Asbo unrecognised. Should that also be prevented?

    In Henry V, the king wanders around the camp disguised before the battle of Agincourt to see what the soldiers think, knowing that if he went as himself, they would never tell him the truth.

    There seem to be many good reasons for not wanting to post under a real name, but for most people, it is probably simply because they know that what is being said is not going to change the world, as you have pointed out.

    However, because the internet tends to be a constantly recorded and monitored global event, some people might simply think that having their every word attached to their real lives might potentially be dangerous, given the possibility of governments and states and the political status quo changing over time.

    I can see real potential risks.

    Unfortunately, your rewards seem a bit flimsy.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Atomboy

    You assume that people hide behind their avatars and are dishonest, which might simply say more about how you view people, rather than their motives.

    I agree with that, although there are clearly a lot of people who DO hide behind their avatars. I think that most of those who post on this site, though, are honest. After a short time, it's not hard to sort out the sheep from the goats.

    In Henry V, the king wanders around the camp disguised before the battle of Agincourt to see what the soldiers think, knowing that if he went as himself, they would never tell him the truth.

    Mm, I was thinking of Lear in the wilderness, and the fool, who is the only one allowed to tell Lear the truth, followed by Edmund in disguise.

    Cordelia tells the truth, as herself, and is shunned.

    As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods:
    They kill us for their sport

    ReplyDelete
  133. Atomboy - your latest post is such piffle I fear (for the identity that is presently you) that I may need to be blunt.

    You're not Henry V or David Beckham - you're just a farty person, like me, who ambles into this world and out again.

    You're not a pestered celebrity. You're not a spook. You're not the King of England. You are, like me, a nobody.

    So do us all a favour and respect what little claim on identity you have.

    And celebrate it.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Ah come on, Peter, if you cut any of us, do we not bleed? It's not only celebrities who can be damaged by the wrong person finding the wrong post on t'internet.

    Besides, as a prop for Leinster and Connachta, I'd've thought you'd be too tough to engage in this sort of chat. ;-)

    Am off for a while; may be back laters.....

    ReplyDelete
  135. Can we start posting music yet?

    ReplyDelete
  136. This is simply stunning, James:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E69flRylQRo

    ReplyDelete
  137. Peter Bracken

    Atomboy - your latest post is such piffle I fear (for the identity that is presently you) that I may need to be blunt.

    It does you no credit to pretend that you think the examples given as a matter of illustration are somehow reflections of how I think of myself.

    You know your argument has not stood up well, so you are seeking to skew things.

    Try to see how your line of thought would work in the real world.

    Let's say you have been invited to a kind of large, informal, open party and the arrangement is to meet in the local pub.

    When you get there, quite predictably, there are people you know and people you don't and they all have tight or loose attachments or none at all.

    You see some people you know and start chatting. One of them then introduces you to someone you don't know. "This is Little Winkle," he says, "but we all call him Winks."

    At this point, do you start to unravel, knowing that not only is this new person hiding behind a false name, but he is even putting another false name in front of that one?

    Anyway, you put that to one side and talk. He is interesting and has a lot of ideas you think are good. Eventually, you say, "So, what's your real name?"

    You are stunned when he again hides behind another obvious lie: "John Smith."

    After questioning one or two people, you have it confirmed that his name really is John Smith.

    The problem is that this is basically just hearsay. How can anyone know for sure, jsut because a few people say so?

    In the end, you demand that he goes home and comes back with his birth certificate to prove to you that his ideas are worth listening to because he can prove to be who he and others claim to be the case.

    What was wrong with just listening to what he said?

    Now you know that the ideas he had can be attributed to this particular John Smith, how have they been made better or more valid?

    ReplyDelete
  138. peter_bracken:

    I for one, would rather hob-knob with atomboy / M.lJL than either David Beckham or Henry V, whosoever those bozos may be.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Peter

    I enjoyed that video, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  140. If anybody's got a spare 8 and a half minutes, this really impressed me when I saw it:

    Enjoy...

    ReplyDelete
  141. Turminder

    When you get back from your walk, if you check in, here's a little som'thin' som'thin for you...

    (and everyone else too, obviously):

    Pure Genius...

    ReplyDelete
  142. "You know your argument has not stood up well, so you are seeking to skew things."

    I'm not skewing anything, Atomboy. And the increasingly bizzare scenarios you're painting in order to sustain your position highlight the miserable millstone around your neck.

    If I was introduced to someone at a party who told me his name was Donald Duck, I don't care how beguiling his words were, I'd have a problem with that.

    That's not because I'm duckist. It's because the Duck, whichever way you slice it, would be taking the piss, and that's not something to be endured in polite company.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Very powerful, James. I'll pass it on...

    ReplyDelete
  144. OK, let's give you another bizarre scenario.

    A painting hangs in a gallery and everyone, from visitors to art experts say that it is by a certain painter. It has his signature and is in the right style and there are references to it in literature of the time and sketches and various other "proofs."

    Then, by strange coincidence on the same day, an old man on his deathbed confesses that he forged it and a paining is discovered which also confirms all the proofs, but is slightly different and has been sealed in a bricked-up priest's hole for 300 years, from when the artist lived.

    This is what you seem to be saying. Something which is falsely attributed has no value.

    So why were the experts convinced by the quality and artistry and craftsmanship? Because it was there, but not belonging to the person they thought.

    You seem to have a problem with not being able to make your own judgments unless someone else confirms them for you. You seem to require the imprimatur of authority to sanction your thoughts.

    If you need to live that way, fine. Don't imagine that others will do the same or that of itself is has more merit.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I thought so too.

    (I had 'something in my eye' for quite a bit of it!)

    ReplyDelete
  146. peter_bracken:

    With the greatest respect you did skew Atomboy's Shakespearian Henry V example to suggest that Atomboy somehow identified as a King of England wannabe, which is pretty bizarre in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  147. medve

    Thanks for wanting to hobnob with me in preference to dead royalty and living-legend celebrities.

    Did I mention the autism and Tourettes?

    You can change your mind...

    ReplyDelete
  148. ah, bert jansch - love it. and the archies have a new album out - and if you go here and click on the coconut, you can watch their filmish takes on each - click 'play all' to start with 'magnetic warrior', which rocks (a lot). am workin' me way through...

    tha fall are playing the atp i'm going to. the fall. oh, this is going to be good....

    ReplyDelete
  149. @ peter bracken

    I give you 10 out of 10 for tenacity and I wish I was sober enuf to join the debate.

    Like lots of old men I have occasionally fallen awake, given last night's sad events I wish I hadn't.

    Peter - if my name were in real life, John Smith or John Doe I can't think the real world would take me any more, or less, seriously if I posted as same...........

    I really am sad about the Scorpio/Scherfig/Montana thing, my sadness could not be any the more real or deep if I knew their real names.

    My tears are real, I know that to be true from their saltiness. I know that I shall still be deeply sad when I am wide awake.

    One day soon I shall again choose not to drink and will then pass the booze through me and become cold sober - but I will still hurt about this weekends events....................Scherfig/Scorpio/Montana matter to me.............not because I know/don't know their real names but because I know that behind their monikers they are real people.

    The drama here this weekend was no less intense because of the alleged falseness of the identities of the actors.

    I hope you continue to post here Peter and find it as you would wish in real life..

    ReplyDelete
  150. medve: Atomboy, not me, used the example of Henry V in order to sustain his position. I just showed it for it was: ruinously inept.

    Atomboy's latest offering is on even shakier ground, if that were possible.

    His analogy is flawed, for starters. I'm not saying that pseudonym posters are fakers - quite the opposite: I'm saying that because their words are their own, they should record them as such.

    In addition, far from seeking third party approval for anonymous comments, I merely seek the 'imprimatur' of the author him/herself.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Oh lovely PhilB, I like Bert Jan I'm going to fall back asleep

    xx.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Oh dear, GIYUS has pootled onto a science thread and is confusing the locals. Strangely is coming across as less of a troll than the chap whose initial article is being criticised....

    ReplyDelete
  153. deano: enjoyed your post - a veritable night cap (for me who rarely drinks after eight).

    Bon nuit, tout le monde.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Hey, James, I can tell you tales of the Leg-end, JM, first gig I saw was JM and Danny Thomson..

    Why has Peter Braken got a problem with this excellent bass player?

    ReplyDelete
  155. I care about you Montana

    I care about you Hank Scorpio

    I care about you Scherfig

    your angst is my angst.

    ReplyDelete
  156. (WTF?, I just lost like 2 hours on youtube...)

    Right, here's an awesome version of an anthem...

    (if you don't like this, you're dead inside I tells ya, dead inside)

    Is there a better Sunday night song, than this?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Peter Bracken

    I am going to preface this by saying that I think this has gone on long enough and that we are now preventing others from posting here.

    His analogy is flawed, for starters. I'm not saying that pseudonym posters are fakers - quite the opposite: I'm saying that because their words are their own, they should record them as such.

    I was not saying they are fakers, either.

    Analogies need to be read more carefully and less literally.

    I think you are wrong and I think you know you are, but this is, as you have rightly said, a tiny dispute with no significance whatsoever, so I can happily walk away in my cunning disguise.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Turminder

    I had a feeling you'd be a fan of John.

    'May you never' is one of my absolute favourite songs of all time...

    ReplyDelete
  159. Evening MsChin.

    Atomboy: Thanks for putting me to rights with the hobnob as opposed to hob-knob. We live and learn. If you have mentioned autism and Tourettes, that has escaped my attention. Tourettes, is that just nervous ticks or is it the involuntary uttering of obscenities?

    Either way, you still beat David Beckham hands down.

    ReplyDelete
  160. ooooohhh, good call MsChin!!!

    ReplyDelete
  161. medve

    Sorry about the hobnob - I was not trying to put you right, I didn't even notice.

    The autism and Tourettes is really more of a joke between Atomgirl and me, which I have allowed to leak slightly onto the internet.

    I do not think it is entirely without foundation, though, both with ticks and odd "speaking in tongues" events.

    deano

    Touching posts.

    ReplyDelete
  162. turminder my friend, you need to know a few true things about me.

    here the are:

    i) I am older than you;

    ii) I am heterosexual, as I understand it you are a bloke thus I have no interest in what's 'tween your legs

    (in any event I have spent all of my adult sexual life "in praise of older women" and I have no intention of changing horses mid stream...) ;

    iii) I am a rich tramp who lives in a field in Yorkshire;

    iv) "rich" in my vocabulary simply means I have more money coming in each month than goes out;

    v) if you email a "real" address to Montana, marked for my attention and with the request she forward it, she will then email it to me;

    vi) I will then send you a real £100 (in 5x£20 notes), a Yorkshire tramp's, contribution towards your electricity bill....

    I have no need for the £100 and if it makes you smile it will be well spent.

    If it strikes you as odd, you should understand that at the passing of me best mate last year I started going into pubs and putting £50 behind the bar. All there for the simple pleasure of the next few to the bar....

    ReplyDelete
  163. And this is what people end up listening to when their mum insists on dragging them to folk gigs when they're in their teens...

    ReplyDelete
  164. deano

    I missed last night's events but from what I see, I share my tears with you.

    Bitters

    If you're around, found this and loved it (well I would, wouldn't I!).

    ReplyDelete
  165. Cheers Chin - I knew you would understand.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Too kind Deano, I'm rich in all things but money, and wouldn't have it any other way. Which puts me in mind of..

    ReplyDelete
  167. As an example, I've sat in a session where Ms Rusby's other half played a few tunes.. One thing I miss about Embra is the tunes...

    ReplyDelete
  168. deano & mschin: re I missed last night's events but from what I see, I share my tears with you.

    + 1.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I actually loved the Rusby gigs, despite all expectations to the contrary before the first one.

    (When my mum explained to me that that was where she was taking me for my 18th birthday, I think my response was something along the lines of - 'you're 'avin a fookin' laff, intcha!?').

    Just goes to show mum's do know what they're doing sometimes...

    ReplyDelete
  170. James

    Us mums always know best, not just sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  171. shoe spammers have hit a couple of threads big-time. Am often on this time of night and it's not normally this bad - "it looks like a certain Media group's IT department have some explaining/work to do tomorrow" heheheheh.

    My first gig was Clapton with Mark Knopfler, Nathan East, Ray Cooper et al at the NEC, for my 12th birthday. From such acorns of AOR do such ATP oak trees grow...

    ReplyDelete
  172. MsChin

    Hahah - I've heard that one before...

    ReplyDelete
  173. Cheers Shaz - I didn't know that you were that mature.... young miss......x

    turm that was an introduction to an unexpected delight. I have played it thrice and bookmarked it. When I have completed this post I shall return to it............it's class.


    As the guy on the door said,a fair exchange is no robbery - it will be as we have agreed.

    Best wishes young friend.

    ReplyDelete
  174. James

    As deano will confirm, here in Yorkshire the 'mum knows best' statement was often delivered with a clip roun' earoil to ensure comprehension!

    ReplyDelete
  175. Philippa

    I was trying to link to Knopfler doing the Trawlerman Song, but WMG is blocking it on account of me being in Brazil.

    Racists.

    Still, it's the thought that counts though..

    ReplyDelete
  176. Philippa

    Yeah, I noticed the shoe sales are on, over at CiF.

    And hi to shaz.

    ReplyDelete
  177. 'ere, Philippa, the spammers are offering a 'wholesale football star' - wonder which one is for sale ..

    ReplyDelete
  178. MsChin

    I know that too.

    (My mum was born and bred in Bra'-fud, and I grew up mostly in 'ull)

    ReplyDelete
  179. Only pop in occassionaly at night and only post irregularly then (for obvious reasons). Deano, you're only the oldest whore on the block as long as I ain't around - I'm 62!

    Bert Jansch is a big favourite in this house, as is John Renbourn - I have a copy of his first album inscribed with a pentangle.

    Night guys - good to come here and find a relaxed vibe ( as I think I used to say).

    ReplyDelete
  180. mschin - saw that, first read it as 'wholesome football star', which I admit surprised me greatly.

    'ice cream shoes' now puzzling me a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Good night all, sweet dreams...

    ReplyDelete
  182. ah, very nice james! remember when the disposable heroes put out 'drug of the nation', and i was going on about how good it was, how different, a kindly friend took me to one side and explained a few things to me. heh heh.

    still good though

    ReplyDelete
  183. Saw GSH too James, that was a good gig, his percussionist tried to chat up my then girlfriend... New album thatt was on the Graun site, v.good, is on the wish list..

    ReplyDelete
  184. Night from me, too.

    And (((hugs to Montana)))

    ReplyDelete
  185. ...the reason why people think 'socialism' means 'unamerican', and 'apartheid' is a new headache medication...

    ReplyDelete