- but don't.

Thought I'd start the ball rolling with:

1. Yesterday morning, in the hotel, I watched the sports program with Gary Lineker presenting. They interviewed six or seven football managers, of the teams they had featured, and they were ALL Scottish.

Is there an intelligible explanation for this?

2. More and more programs are using the utterly pointless fast-forward technique, to suddenly turn everyone into Penguins on heat for a few seconds. And then back to normal speed. Why do they do this?

Is there an intelligible explanation?

3. The media always use the tenseless tense - "Man, 34, dies in clifftop drama"

When does he die? How often? Oh, just the once! Didn't realise.

Is there an intelligible explanation for this?

4. Scottish and N. Irish presenters far outnumber all others on television news programmes.

Is there an intelligible explanation for this?

I am interested in asking these questions because there has to be an explanation. Pure random chance doesn't account for any of these things. I want to know what it is.

If you want to join in, please refer to numbers of questions, and/or add your own in numbered sequence.

3a. Historical programs use present continuous when they really need past tenses... "In 1066 Harold dies in arrow/eyeball interface drama."

It's as if they want to get us thinking of life as a tickertape; tenseless and undifferentiated, so that all we need do is talk about what is on the tape. Here, Harold is being shot with an arrow (gets shot), there, the Twin Towers are being destroyed (collapse) and in the distant future, over here somewhere, BBC viewers' brains turn to jelly.

But WHY?? There MUST be an explanation, and I want it!

HAve you ever read Watchmen?

but at least this provides the rationale we were all earnestly seeking for abandoning the 'ahead of' absurdity. Now:

"Harold dies ahead of Normans' return to France"

becomes:

"Harold dies to the left of Normans' return to France."

So much better!

1. Because Scottish people are tight, and the Chairman of a club doesn't like to see his money squandered. Thus Scottish managers are popular.

Q. What did the Scotsman say when a fly landed in his pint?

When you say "programs" do you mean "programmes"? If so I can't say I've noticed any doing this, so the possible reasons are:

1. You're watching different programmes to me, which probably means some horrible pikey channel. Try watching Newsnight or University Challenge, where this effect will not be used.

2. All you ever watch on telly are 70s soft-core comedies, starring Robin Askwith. Again, the problem may lie with you.

3. Your iPlayer is broken, which would mean this really is a program issue, rather than a programme one. Try upgrading your 28.8k modem.

Hope this helps. If I can insult you further then please let me know.

Enforcer - I think AndrewR has just demonstrated the important difference between intelligible and intelligent.

Although I'm not sure anything in the 70s with Robin Askwith in could, with any integrity, be described as a "comedy".

Ok, so the 'thrill' of the Confessions series may have worn thin, but for me they got a new lease of life in 1997.

Getting drunk and watching one, while repeatedly reminding yourself that Tony Booth was the PM's father-in-law made them an amazingly surreal experience.

Hmmm, maybe that was just me, then.

No, I'm with you.

The actual ex-Prime Minister's wifes Dad. He, like, went to Chequers for Christmas.

Plus, his daughter is a prominent Human Rights lawyer. Oh, the irony.

Regarding:

2. More and more programs are using the utterly pointless fast-forward technique, to suddenly turn everyone into Penguins on heat for a few seconds. And then back to normal speed. Why do they do this?

I never really know whether to use 'programme' or its valid alternate 'program'. Language evolves.

But - the program(me)s I am thinking of are all sorts of documentary type program(me)s. Gardening, house repairs, and that utter piece of garbage I innocently led you into watching a while back - about the Swedish massacre. It's happening everywhere, so anyone who hasn't seen it must have a problem; Andrew, are you a proper television viewer?

Horizon does it too.

I'll play, anyway.

5. How on Earth could reporters STILL think it a good idea to report floods by wearing wellington boots and standing in puddles? How many times must all channels go through this well-worn routine before beginning to feel short of ideas and a little obvious?

Well, they could always stand outside No. 10 for all political stories instead...

Outside Broadcast is a scourge more generally. How does it add to the story of some redundancies or whatever if they are stood outside the now-deserted industrial estate?

And:

6. How does a pair of journalists interviewing one another constitute news?

It's a mere splosh away from snorkels and speech bubbles my man.

On this topic, even C4 news insists on stooping to ludicrous backgrounds whilst for instance reporting price cuts - cue animated guillotines from late 18th century French cartoons...

Or superimposed piggy-banks during the economic correspondent's take on monetary matters.

Motorway footage - guess what: "the drive towards equality/the top/an understanding/work"

If you treat viewers like idiots it might just catch on

Newsnight explaining the invasion of Iraq by means of a giant sandpit was a new low at the time.

Re. 5:

Television is a visual medium, so they have stumbled on the idea that there must be a visual aid on screen for everything. The BBC website has now adopted this principle too. An article about any medical issue has to be illustrated with a conveyor belt full of tablets. Dentistry news must show someone's clamped-open mouth being probed by a dentist.

It is just not possible to run a story without background visual reminders of the subject being discussed. Nature (and the media) abhors a vacuum.

Fortunately, now we're in the age of digital telly, the problem is easily solved. Simply set the tuning knob on your television to "Radio 4" and, bingo, you're guaranteed much higher quality news, with no annoying visuals what-so-ever.

Of course, Radio 4 isn't such a good medium for Confessions of a Window Cleaner, but you can't have everything.

I believe that it is always programme unless you are talking about computers, in which case it is program.

Unless of course you are American in which case the rule book goes out the window....

Interesting. I hadn't even thought that British English used 'program'. Now I find that it used to be the correct spelling.

"The word “program” was predominant in the UK until the 19th century, when the spelling “programme” became more common — largely as a result of influence from French, which has the same word 'programme'."

It is not often that AndrewR gets a chance to correct my spelling (usually it's the other way around), and even rarer for him to spot the opportunity, but on this occasion I will stand corrected.

Yes, but look on the bright side: he did use 'different to' instead of 'different from'...

Unfortunately, I was unable to find a rule being broken there.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/different-from-than-or-to

Mind you, I did catch him writing 'eidt' instead of 'edit'.

It's worse thank just being Scottish, all the Managers in the premier league of the Irn-Bru persuasion are actually Glaswegian!

7. Why do so many drivers do this?

Because they were born in Scotland.

Do I win a prize ?

8. Why are women always ill?

Because they're [cloud9] Easy answer to that one!

On the visual imagery point, what about the woman having her mammogram who is trundled out every time breast cancer is mentioned?

9. Why is someone's occupation relevant to a crime? Even more so, a former occupation. As in " *** a former soldier/policeman was involved in..."

10. why won't the swear filter draw the emoticon when you edit a post where you've use the word ""?

I can kind of answer this.

Journalists are very limited to what they can report whilst a trial of any kind is taking place. For example they may know every minute detail of the person involved, but until come to trial they can only say things like "A former policeman, of Stockbridge Avenue, blah blah..." rather than name the person.

They tread a fine, and well trod line, until the suspect comes to trial, and then another fine line until the tiral is complete.

I've been to Iraq and I can confirm that it is actually a massive sand-pit, so they were pretty accurate on that one.......;)

Tuning knob indeed.

I like your idea in principle, but there is a significant downside. The Archers. *Shudder*

11. Why have 'irregular heartbeats' and other cardiac conditions suddenly claimed so many lives this year?

It seems that in the last few months, there have been 1 or 2 high-profile deaths from healthy people with heart-conditions EVERY month.

It really makes me want to just sit on the sofa and eat ice cream!

Not one from the media, but actually the general public for once.

When ANYTHING is mentioned to do with job cuts, pay, pensions, bonuses, duck houses or moat cleaning there is a huge hoo haa that "you'd never get a member of the armed forces going on strike".

I KNOW! Just stop telling me every time!. Its a bit like when people say why is it when you puke up there are carrots in it.

NB: This is not having a go at the armed forces. They do an excellent job and deserves the highest respect.

12.

Availability bias. The rate is most likely the same its rate of reporting that's increase either from medics looking out for it more and reporting it as such or the media finding a new bandwagon to jump on.

13. On programmes (see what I did there?) about concerned mothers of fat kids, why is it that the concerned mother is always as fat as the kid, but the interviewer makes no mention of the fact?

In at number 14....

Global warming, Co2, car emissions, terrible gas guzzlers or even petrol prices. Lets show some archive footage of cars driving when its COLD so it looks like there is smoke* coming out of the exhausts.

Try a bit harder, please.


* Deadly, deadly smoke #runforyourlives

And number 15 - completely unwarranted use of the word 'causes': e.g. 'carbon dioxide causes global warming'. The merest consideration of the second law of thermodynamics would immediately reveal that the cause of global warming is the sun. All else is effects.

Surely then it's the fusion of hydrogen into helium that causes global warming.

Or maybe it's the conversion of mass into energy that causes it.

How far do you go with this? Does pressing the accelerator cause you to get a speeding ticket, or is it the combustable nature of long dead marine creatures that's to blame

Oh, I blame the starfish.

My point, though, is more subtle: it is presented as if it is an established observable and falsifiable fact that the 2% or so of carbon dioxide directly attributable to man and not to e.g. farting elephants, volcanoes and the like, is causing a runaway global warming event. There is *never* any consideration of opposing evidence or even an 'it is believed' - and this pseudoscience is used to qualify international agreements between governments.

16. Why do some people (including me) get irked when people use "refute" when they are not refuting something, or "crescendo" to describe a climax*, and others don't give a monkey's? Other examples are available

17. Why in the 'meejah' does nobody disagree any more, but "slams" someone else's opinion?

Global warming in the generally accepted sense (an increase in temperature away from the "norm") is caused by the changes in the atmosphere rather than the Sun so it is caused by CO2.

Global warming in absolute terms is as suggested caused by the sun.

Agreed that theories are being touted as FACT but then this is the case alot of things also related the to green agenda and the "natural" industry. I think some of this boils down to who is doing the research and/or expressing the point of view.

Neil is talking gibberish again, I'm afraid, but on a remotely related theme:

Why do financial reports always say things like "Shares plummet (that's acceptable for now) on the back of ... latest reports, etc."

No-one cites any evidence that the said latest reports have any causal link whatever to the plummet. It just gives the impression that someone understands something they don't.

Mark - a word of advice:

Don't even think about marking any philosophy essays!

Just sayin:

Another one

Idioms can become playthings in the right/wrong hands.

Two Welsh tourists nicked a penguin while drunk in Australia. One is a bricklayer, the other an ex-Royal Marine

18. Why is everyone on chat shows Gay?

19. Why is Wales always used as a size comparison for other countries/states/islands?



News just in. Wales is about the same size as, er…………Wales.

(Technically speaking, it's exactly the same size.)

Because Wales is now the official IUD

Natural disasters always used to affect an area the size of Belgium. Which uless you know the size of Belgium was a wasted statistic..

Belgium is bigger than Wales, so the move from Belgium to Wales as a reference just reflects the fact that 'disasters' are getting smaller.

These are part of the well-known "Newsround" series of units of area. These are all prefaced by the phrase "an area the size of..." and start with a ten-pence-piece, moving by way of your hand, on to a football pitch (though this can confusingly also be used for length), then a Kent, a Belgium and finally a Wales.

You forgot the London Bus.

Au contraire, Monsieur Mansilla. The London Bus is not a measurement of area, but volume or - more generally - size.

I thought it was length, as in

"The Blue Whale can be as long as two London Buses in line"

Good point. It is a very versatile unit - it can also be used for mass, but not for area.

Or frequency, as in "oh look, there are four number 11's arriving at once" but the 371 is only once on a Sunday.

Going back to the BBC Deptarmnet of Grandma (because I know how much Brian loves them) here's a quote:



But this has since mutated: The google search result page has it as quoted above, but some literary genius in the BBC has now corrected it so it no longer contains three tenses:



Have you been complaining, Brian?

((GUILT))

Anyway, shouldn't that be "the plane he is flying"?

Nope. I don't think he is killed until the glider was flying.

Since when have you become tense-conscious, then?

"Jim Clennell becomes tense-conscious ahead of flight drama."

Listen, Chummy, when you will have translated as many French documents as me, you'd be suffering what Anadin used to call a "tense nervous headache" too!

I am reminded of Douglas Adams' H2G2 comment on new verb tenses being one of the principle problems of time travel.
But he was ahead of his time...

OK, step away from the keyboard, or I'll use this

I'm not bluffing.

You'll never take me alive, Conspiracy Theorist.

Wait, should that be "you will never have taken me alive"? or "You'll never take me ahead of my death"?

You'll never would have going to...

Ok enough already....

For those here who have not seen this, I can add "Britain's Got talent" and the Ch4 Bin Laden documentary to the list.

It is becoming the thing to do, even though it is completely meaningless.

What is it for? Seriously, does anyone know?

I'm down in Somerset tonight, visiting the in-laws whichs meant my father-in-law had control of the remote control. This, in turn, meant Britain's got talent

I have never seen such a dreadful show. I expected it to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but I had no idea the bar was set so low.

Quite frankly, if you're watching that dross you deserve the fast-forward sequences and far, far worse.

I have warned you -

Take THAT

20. Media Superlatives and Exaggerations



Who 'dubbed' it a 'supermoon? I have been an amateur astronomer for most of my life and I've never before heard the expression [Although I see now that it has been around for a while, in unscientific circles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon ]. If the media had not dramatised it, you wouldn't have noticed any difference.

Why dub it a 'supermoon'? As the article goes on, rather sheepishly, to explain: "The Moon's distance from Earth varies because it follows an elliptical orbit instead of a circular one." It is a progressive occurrence, from Apogee to Perigee. There is no noticeable difference suddenly at a particular time.

Reminds me of the "Mars will appear as big as the full moon" crap a few years ago. Firstly, it can never appear larger than about 1/75th of the moon's apparent diameter. Secondly, as above, it is a gradual variation.

OK, folks - just stay calm and go back to your homes. There is nothing to see, here. Anyway, Britain's got talent is on the box."

I never did understand the attraction with them. But then I wasn't a pre-pubescent female.

I think you'll find it's been round for, what, four billion years or so, since it was molten.

What with gravity and all that...

No wonder nothing ever gets done about these things!

Oh, don't even get me started on young Earthers, creationists, supporters of intelligent design and fundamentalists.

A Stalkbook friend of mine pointed me in the direction of the group "Fundies say the darnest things", which I thought I would find amusing. Instead it just depresses me that there are so many people in the world who are so woefully ignorant of basic facts and so desperate to spread their ignorance around.

Clicked on the link, then, did we ??

Shouldn't you be watching the BGT semi?

Shhh! I am.

Indeed.

I'm thinking of creating a new on-line identity as a scholarly supporter of intelligent design and touring the creationist web-sites, writing at length on the difference between disputing evidence and disputing a hypothesis based upon that evidence.

My alter-ego will put forward a radical new view - continuous intelligent design where we (in a non-theistic way, obviously, this has to be suitable for American classrooms) accept the evidence which supports evolution, but dispute the mechanism behind it and instead suggestion that an intelligent creator constantly adjusts the nature of living organisms to better suit their evironment.

It's main attack weapon will be statistics - does the speed of adaptation match up with the probability of such adaptations occuring as natural mutations, or is it always a bit faster, suggesting that the process is steered?

No matter how many mutations are tested I'm guessing that 50% will have happened faster than the law of averages predicts - and that sounds like pretty strong evidence for an intelligence guiding the process.

Anyway, the important thing is that evolutionists and CID supporters will be speaking the same language, accepting the same facts and agreeing on all of the major facts. I'll write a couple of books, do some lecture tours, make a few million and then, one random day on some insignificant chat show, I'll casually mention the URL for this post and say, "So, sorry, but it was all a joke. Still, look on the bright side, at least now you understand the science, you stupid f***wits!"

I think I'll call it Trollucation.

Wow ,was that written in English? The words were recognisable, I just didn't understand them.

But as I'm with Brian, watching BGT that may explain why

On that topic, how can an act sing exactly the same song as he did in the auditions, and be lauded. Then the next act is castigated for not stepping up from the audition. I wouldn't understand it, except it's Simon and BGT

I think you'll get away with it, too.

The statistical angle is a very promising one; assuming a bell-curve distribution of times for particular adaptations, you are going to have plenty to choose from.

When you finally admit what you've been up to, don't forget that I am one of your best friends.

Think "Dog".

And this photo gallery is the height of stupidity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17973367

Just looking at photographs, there is no indication of how large the moon appeared. None. You can make it look as large as you like with the right lens.

Just to point out, I wasn't physically with Brian...

No, I was in the audience

I couldn't get a ticket..

But at least we were together in spirit.

Personally I support the punctuated equilibrium theory, which means that there should be plenty of periods of relatively rapid evolution to choose from, so I'm fairly happy that I can beat 50% with only a minor spot of cherry-picking.

I think I'll call my first book on CID Winding up the watch, both as an allusion to Paley's Natural Theology, but moreso because it's got "winding up" right there in the title

Right, now all I need is a good pseudonym and one of those Internet universities that will give doctorates to cats.

You cunning fox, you.

Actually, as I understood it, the punctuated equilibrium version was more or less an ad hoc adjustment to accommodate the assumed dearth of transitional fossils. Is it still in vogue, or has the apparent problem been resolved in some other way?

As I understand there are reasons to believe that adaptations can be both gradual and sudden, with external factors determining which is prominent at any one time.

To me though it seems logical that more difficult times will drive faster evolution, as tiny differences will be accentuated in the struggle to breed.

Of course that is just a competing hypothesis for CID, so I probably won't dwell on it in the book.

Sudden ones are going to be few and far between - the probability of getting a suitable mutation in a short period of time drops dramatically. The line is far more likely to just die out. Even if it survives, there are going to be fewer transitional samples because of the short timescale. So by and large (whatever that means) the enemy is going to be demanding evidence of slower transitions. There ought to be plenty.

In defence of your 'thesis', of course, you can apply your statistics to large or small adaptations, as long as you produce some plausible probability figures.

BTW - do you have any idea how 'lucky' the line of evolution we experienced was? I mean, at each stage, do you know what the odds might have been? Or in other words, from purely random mutation, what would be the mean time expected for us to get where we are?

.......and when do you think the Welsh might catch up?

It is an interesting but seldom acknowledged point that evolution in Wales was seriously hindered by one simple fact - a delay in inventing the indoor toilet.

21. Modern Art.





How do they get away with it?