Mental Maths

[Hagbard]

Tammet is calculating 377 multiplied by 795. Actually, he isn't "calculating": there is nothing conscious about what he is doing. He arrives at the answer instantly. Since his epileptic fit, he has been able to see numbers as shapes, colours and textures. The number two, for instance, is a motion, and five is a clap of thunder. "When I multiply numbers together, I see two shapes. The image starts to change and evolve, and a third shape emerges. That's the answer. It's mental imagery. It's like maths without having to think."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1409903,00.html

[Brownthing]

"Peek can read two pages simultaneously, one with each eye."

yowsers!

[pongoid]

This is too wierd. I was just talking with some girl about autistic children and her job as a therapist for them. The shit she was explaining to me was pretty far out there. This guy, Tammet is very lucky that he can communicate as easily as he does.

[Lady E]

he is inventing a language isnt he? someone wrote into the guardian the following week to slag it off as being totally derived from estonian. very interesting though.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by emma
he is inventing a language isnt he? someone wrote into the guardian the following week to slag it off as being totally derived from estonian. very interesting though.

Yeah I think that sums up exactly why I don't buy the Guardian I just browse the site, its the daily mail of the moaning leftish.

[Lady E]

well i dont agree with that really steev, bit strong. the mail are so evil. mail readers are nasty bigots, even the nice ones that i am related to. but grauniad readers, being human beings can be arses too i suppose.

i remember being up in arms when they replaced the women's page with a men's page, when i was doing my A levels. it took me all day to realise it was an april fool's. my parents laughed and laughed at me.

[Hagbard]

I don't think it is too strong, the guardian is perhaps the most pessimistic newspaper out there, sure I find the Daily Mail more repulsive, but then my politics are left wing so I would.

In politics they either take the Jeremy Paxman approach, shout a lot, piss the subject off immediately and get nothing more than a shallow discussion of the terms... but more often a kind of ambiguous token position of opposition to the status quo which gradually morphs into a vindication of the governments actions... theres a constant message of futility throughout the newspaper and ultimately I think the end result is the same as reading the Daily Mail.

G2 is no better than Linda lee Potter, it just plays on the fears of a different segment of the middle class... high levels of lead in giant thai prawns and Buy-to-let horror stories. The 'Media' section lays it out bare to see, the Guardian is the Channel 4 of newspapers.

[bitch one]

it's only a feckin newspaper...i just buy it for charlie brooker and the odd bit here and there...if you take what you read in any paper seriously, you are silly. most of any paper is kack. now and then there is something good.

having said that, at least most of what in the guardian is quite well written...unlike the observer, which amazes me any time i read it, often using bad grammar etc..

[Hagbard]

Yeah well there are a lot of silly people out there taking them seriously and now the election policys are drawn out precisely on the lines taken by pessimistic papers like the Daily Mail and The Guardian, the incessant scaremongering about immigration and crazy amounts of taxpayers money spent on a left wing cause célèbre such as the Fox Hunting debacle are testament to that (more hours spent discussing fox hunting in parliament last year than on primary school education).

[Lady E]

the guardian, which i actually read, seems to have been quite even handed over the fox hunting issue in the sense that they are representing both sides of the argument and agreeing that there are much more important things to be concerned about.

it would be an improvement if the election agenda was set by papers like the guardian or the observer in opposition to the mail . i think you will find that the reality is very different.

[Spandex]

"Only a paper"?? Lord. Mass media is how most people get their info and how they decide how to vote. Without a truly independent and accurate press, democracy is pretty meaningless.

IMO, the problem with the "leftie" papers is that they are usually just a little bit left of the right wing papers... and that they consistently frame all debate within the confines of what the government wants.. e.g. by reporting what the government says, no matter how ridiculous, and then bothering to argue with it... e.g. arguing for months over WMD but devoting almost no coverage to the serious questions of war crimes and the legality and morality of the war. They don't so much present a pinko leftie point of view as move the boundaries of leftiness over to the right and make anyone who genuinely challenges the government seem like an extremist loonie. I DON'T NEED ANY HELP TO SEEM LIKE AN EXTREMIST LOONIE.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Spandex
They don't so much present a pinko leftie point of view as move the boundaries of leftiness over to the right and make anyone who genuinely challenges the government seem like an extremist loonie. I DON'T NEED ANY HELP TO SEEM LIKE AN EXTREMIST LOONIE.

Which is precisely how the New York Times operates, it's easier to see it there because we're not part of that system.

[bitch one]

re 'most people' - most people don't read the paper, unless you count the back page for the footie, page 3 for the tits and maybe the telly pages. a paper like the guardian or the mail mainly preaches to a converted minority. most people don't give a fuck about anything, other than some vague bad feelings related to screaming headlines. sad but true.

all sweeping generalizations are bollocks, by the way

[Lady E]

i agree with that to a certain extent but i think having a go at the guardian is pretty meaningless as i dont think it's field of influence is of much consequence in britain really, especially in terms of policy making, government or electoral focus.

it represents a very small readership who are likely to be left leaning. given the political agenda has shifted rightwards, i think this leaves the guardian constituency often in a place politically where they feel unrepresented. hence the pessimism.

the fact is this paper is almost impossible to get hold of outside of its heartlands, of which brighton is definitely one. so i really dont see how it can be agenda setting in any way.

it would be far more constructive or relavant to criticise the murdoch empire, but as is typical of the left, the most vicious attacks are always reserved for their own.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by bitch one
re 'most people' - most people don't read the paper

Which makes it even scarier that the newspapers are still defining the battlelines of the next election. And the Guardian does have a major influence on Labour policy, my brother works at Brighton council decoding Labour policy and Westminster place a lot of importance in the Guardian/ICM polls, a benchmark of opinion for 'traditional labour values' just as the Daily Mail is for conservative middle england.

[Spandex]

All you say is true.. apart from the "most people don't give a fuck" bit I think... you only have to look at the unprecendented response to the tsunami. I reckon given decent information people wouldn't let the government get away with wars, ID cards, "opting out" of human rights, privatising our public services.. etc etc. Instead they get fear-mongering and "we will protect you" nonsense.

warning: this is my favourite ranting subject.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by emma
it would be far more constructive or relavant to criticise the murdock empire, but as is typical of the left, the most vicious attacks are always reserved for their own.

I think its far more constructive or relevant to criticise the mainstream press as one entity given that there is little actual distinction between the 'left' media and the 'right' media, it's all the same system.

[bitch one]

yes, i'm ranting without any substance as usual. agree, we should deffo slag murdoch rather than the comparatively benign grauniad.

i quite like the more specialist bits of the grauniad, eg the science bit or the media bit. and the guide, of course. loads of it is tosh, but so what? they do waste a LOT of trees tho.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Steev


Which makes it even scarier that the newspapers are still defining the battlelines of the next election. And the Guardian does have a major influence on Labour policy, my brother works at Brighton council decoding Labour policy and Westminster place a lot of importance in the Guardian/ICM polls, a benchmark of opinion for 'traditional labour values' just as the Daily Mail is for conservative middle england.

thats interesting that they are taken into account. guardian polls seem to me to represent people whose morals ethics and politics are in a more recognisable place to my own than a lot of what i hear from other newspapers or news media. or people on this board.

however, with regard to these polls. that the methodology of the poll influences the response is clearly true and so there is a link between newspaper editorial and the poll results, which are the influential, agenda setting element of the paper according to you. is that the one factor that renders the guardian scum of the order of the daily mail? because if so it is fairly tenuous. id say.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by bitch one
i quite like the more specialist bits of the grauniad, eg the science bit or the media bit. and the guide, of course. loads of it is tosh, but so what? they do waste a LOT of trees tho.

I've been sneaking into the newsagents recently in a long mac and buying the times or the telegraph or the FT and i've found that if you ignore the political bias (they are no more or less biased than the guardian/observer/independent) the standard of the kinds of stories you mention is pretty much standard, we clearly have talented writers and journalists in the UK.

But isn't the point that this political distinction between the papers is purely manufactured, they exist to support each other and reinforce each other percieved position, ultimately this gives us a very lazy press as Spandex described.

...edit..

Originally posted by emma
is that the one factor that renders the guardian scum of the order of the daily mail? because if so it is fairly tenuous. id say.

I think the mail exists because no better option is offered by the other newspapers, so in that sense yes I think they are all equally complicit.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Steev


I think its far more constructive or relevant to criticise the mainstream press as one entity given that there is little actual distinction between the 'left' media and the 'right' media, it's all the same system.

oh yes, ill suggest to my mum, who runs Mind in worthing that she leaves off buying society guardian in favour of the telegraph / times/ mail / sun / mirror / star and im sure she will agree that her professional needs are met because there is no distinction between any of the papers.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by emma


oh yes, ill suggest to my mum, who runs Mind in worthing that she leaves off buying society guardian in favour of the telegraph / times/ mail / sun / mirror / star and im sure she will agree that her professional needs are met because there is no distinction between any of the papers.

I don't think the fact that newspapers specialise in particular areas contradicts what I'm saying though, that's market forces dictating where the distinctions between the newspapers are drawn. Again we all lose out with a lazy press because the Guardian has a monopoly on Society and Media, The FT on economics and The Times on.. erm.. Land Rover reviews and skiiing holiday offers..

[Spandex]

@emma

I think you underestimate the influence of the Guardian. Having "leftie" papers and visible dissent is crucial in order to give the appearance that debate is encouraged and the system is fair. The "left-wing" press fulfill an important function that keeps the liberal left quiet and happy.. feeling like the government is being challenged... whew.. somebody's making sure that Tony has to account for where the WMD were. Meanwhile obviously true and relevant facts (oil, permanent bases, the sacking of Fallujah etc) are ignored or confined to tiny backpage articles.

Frankly I have less problem with papers that say things like "We Hate All Foreigners" than with papers that say "We Care About Everyone" then go on to explain how we could have "managed" the "Iraq issue" and manage to make us feel like we care whilst we carry on not caring. They fudge the debate and consistently "challenge" what Tony Blair says rather than what we all know to be the truth. Having a tinpot debate about Blair's obvious untruths about PFI or WMD or wotever is merely a waste of time. But presenting it as the "left-wing media" and then managing to persuade a load of people to take it seriously is frankly terrifying.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Steev


I don't think the fact that newspapers specialise in particular areas contradicts what I'm saying though, that's market forces dictating where the distinctions between the newspapers are drawn. Again we all lose out with a lazy press because the Guardian has a monopoly on Society and Media, The FT on economics and The Times on.. erm.. Land Rover reviews and skiiing holiday offers..

why do we lose out? 'market forces' didnt decree that the guardian focuses on the 'caring' professions. NO OTHER PAPER GAVE A SHIT. especially during the thatcher years.

the fact is that unique amongst the surviving british newspapers, the former manchester guardian has been a campaigning left and centre-left voice since 1821.

its not perfect by any means but i would rather its circulation figures and the mail's or the sun's swapped overnight.

[Hagbard]

Like I said before it's very enlightening to look at the example of the relationship between the New York Times and the Washington Post because you can look at it more objectively as a UK citizen. Then when you apply that to the UK press it was clear to me that there is no real difference, our papers are merely generally shifted a little to the left.

Theres plenty of examples on Znet - http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

[nikrem]

i think that comparing the guardian to the daily mail is ludicrous for more reasons than i care to even think about, the least of which is that the grauniad actually appears to contain a certain amount of information, as opposed to a steady stream of fear and loathing. the rare guardian that i read nowadays does irritate the fuck out of me in parts (especially the saturday edition telling us all how last week wedges are, etc,etc) but really...get a grip. or are you just winding up the guardian readers. in which case, be my guest.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Spandex
@emma

I think you underestimate the influence of the Guardian. Having "leftie" papers and visible dissent is crucial in order to give the appearance that debate is encouraged and the system is fair. The "left-wing" press fulfill an important function that keeps the liberal left quiet and happy.. feeling like the government is being challenged... whew.. somebody's making sure that Tony has to account for where the WMD were. Meanwhile obviously true and relevant facts (oil, permanent bases, the sacking of Fallujah etc) are ignored or confined to tiny backpage articles.

Frankly I have less problem with papers that say things like "We Hate All Foreigners" than with papers that say "We Care About Everyone" then go on to explain how we could have "managed" the "Iraq issue" and manage to make us feel like we care whilst we carry on not caring. They fudge the debate and consistently "challenge" what Tony Blair says rather than what we all know to be the truth. Having a tinpot debate about Blair's obvious untruths about PFI or WMD or wotever is merely a waste of time. But presenting it as the "left-wing media" and then managing to persuade a load of people to take it seriously is frankly terrifying.

aah so you think the guardian's readership are smug and happy and think everything is being taken care of for them by their wonderful paper? that democracy is being seen to be played out in it's pages?

how incredibly patronising.

the paper is born of a political system that is unique to this country, ie liberal democracy without a bill of rights, written constitution, etc. it is therefore a part of that system and plays that game. many ordinary people, readers of the guardian or otherwise, are well aware that there are alternatives. that what they read in the paper or hear on the radio is part of the game of politics. that there is such a thing as an editorial view. that newspapers have their own agendas to promote. of course, in some cases, that agenda becomes absorbed by some people as being fact.
i personally would far rather NOT have to see the disgusting bigotry that is vomited forth by the daily mail casually absorbed by so many people as 'fact'. i think it leads to violence and hatred. i think that is far more dangerous than the guardian's stance.

the point is that newspapers in this country are an entrenched part of the political system and to change them would be to change it. any ideas?

[Hagbard]

But it isn't the Manchester Guardian anymore, it moved to London to become part of the establishment and is happy to keep its roots as a brand image, It's as far removed from its roots as New Labour is to the Trade unions movement.

Being better than the Sun is hardly an accolade.

@Emma
the point is that newspapers in this country are an entrenched part of the political system and to change them would be to change it. any ideas?

Stop buying them, it's that simple. Pick and chose your news from various newspapers websites, read the same story in the guardian, the times and the washington post and you'll learn more than in a month of reading any single paper.

[Spandex]

I'm not winding anyone up. I think that the so called "left-wing" press helps to prevent genuine debate by setting the boundaries for dissent. When you criticise it as I am (fairly rationally I think?) you instantly become easy to dismiss as being ludicrous and extreme.

I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy. It's just a side-effect. The purpose of the Guardian is not to engage in debate but to make profit for those who own it (by selling advertising space). Same as any other company, including ALL the other papers. We have a corporate press, not an independent one. I think living with the illusion that things are otherwise is dangerous.

[grobelaar]

is it me or is the Femail section of teh Daily Mail like a trojan horse - the PA for our boss used to buy the Daily Mail everyday and when I challenged her for buy a right wing bunch of fascist nonsense - shee seemed to have no idea what I was talking about.

She could just be dim, but does the Daily Mail use this ploy to lure in a lot more women to read a right wing newspaper?

Also anyone noticed that the Daily Mail is being very aggressively marketed over recent months - they've had people standing outside tube and train stations selling them. Ironic most of the people doing the selling look like Chavs drafted in on the new deal.

[Lady E]

i already read several newspapers in each month from different parts of the political spectrum. i either buy them or read them at my in-laws. plus i listen to radio 4 a lot. so i get a lot of different news coverage.

i actually LIKE reading the guardian on a saturday. it has some great writers. i like its review section. i like charlie brooker. i think the magazine has some really excellent campaigning articles, especially from the great kevin toolis who i have been lucky enough to meet. and shock horror, being into fashion, i like their fashion section. beastly arent i?

the fact is the guardian represents, historically and currently, a more tolerant, inclusive, egalitarian and civilised UK than any of the other papers, with the possible exception of the independent. no, it isnt perfect, by any means. but i fail to see why it can be even considered for a second an enemy or an evil on the level of the mail.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by grobelaar
is it me or is the Femail section of teh Daily Mail like a trojan horse - the PA for our boss used to buy the Daily Mail everyday and when I challenged her for buy a right wing bunch of fascist nonsense - shee seemed to have no idea what I was talking about.

She could just be dim, but does the Daily Mail use this ploy to lure in a lot more women to read a right wing newspaper?

I don't know how it works but my Mum has always bought it 'for the crossword' and has no idea what I'm talking about either.

The Daily Mail is at least something easy to react to, both me and my brother are what you might describe as lefties. Easier to rebel against than cosy old Grauniad.

There seems to be a new women's cancer scare every week in the Daily Mail too.

[nikrem]

@spandex. i totally agree mate. the guardian is a buisness and therefore exists to make money. all i was saying (from my standpoint of not regularly consuming/being programmed by any one brand of media and gleaning my information from a spread of sources) was simply that the guardian does, on occasion, contain the odd nugget, whereby our friend the daily mail spouts constant nazi shit.

[Lady E]

more women than men buy the mail. it's been a well discussed sociological trend in the past 10 years, since the mail became the most influential newspaper in the country, interestingly because it is also one of the most misogynist. Femail was supposedly one of the reasons why this happened.


Originally posted by grobelaar
is it me or is the Femail section of teh Daily Mail like a trojan horse - the PA for our boss used to buy the Daily Mail everyday and when I challenged her for buy a right wing bunch of fascist nonsense - shee seemed to have no idea what I was talking about.

She could just be dim, but does the Daily Mail use this ploy to lure in a lot more women to read a right wing newspaper?

Also anyone noticed that the Daily Mail is being very aggressively marketed over recent months - they've had people standing outside tube and train stations selling them. Ironic most of the people doing the selling look like Chavs drafted in on the new deal.

[Hagbard]

I started this thread with a story in the Guardian that I found fascinating and inspiring to read, but I'm conscious that I fall into its target audience as defined by market forces, they can sell more papers by hitting that middle left sweetspot and that is why they choose to aim at it, not because they are actually driven by spirit of egalitarianism.

[Spandex]

Originally posted by emma
aah so you think the guardian's readership are smug and happy and think everything is being taken care of for them by their wonderful paper? that democracy is being seen to be played out in it's pages?

Not at all. Well.. actually.. I *do* think a lot of them are smug :) But I don't think Guardian readers believe that buying it will make everything ok. But do you not think that the anger of the public at the Iraq war has been absorbed and deflected by pointless quibbling over points of order and audit trails and dossiers? And by the lack of coverage of the real issues, Fallujah, Oil etc. Don't you think that ongoing debate about non-issues distracts people who genuinely care from the real issues? That it's all become mundane and distant as politicians and journalists argue over technicalities? I do.

Originally posted by emma
the point is that newspapers in this country are an entrenched part of the political system and to change them would be to change it. any ideas?

Corruption is also an entrenched part of our political system. That's hardly a good argument for it though. We've had free press and left-wing press in the past, but we don't any more. Gradually they've all been bought up by massive corporations. They've been squashed by the right-wing. It's not possible to publish a paper without huge amounts of advertising... they cost more to print than the cover price, so there's huge barriers to entry and only large corporations can do it. A free press is essential for the workings of democracy. Our political system was founded as a democracy... so wanting a free press again is hardly changing it.

There are all sorts of ways it could be changed. It might mean we'd have to start paying more for our papers, or maybe they could be subsidised according to their circulation. Maybe the advertising could be pooled and random, so people would buy a demographic, rather than an actual slot in a particular paper (and so wouldn't be able to directly influence editorial policy via advertising revenue). I'm sure there are better suggestions out there.. but that's hardly relevant to any criticism of the press at the moment anyway. The solution is a different issue and even if the answer is that there's NO solution, that doesn't affect the validity of the original point.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Steev



The Daily Mail is at least something easy to react to, both me and my brother are what you might describe as lefties. Easier to rebel against than cosy old Grauniad.



wrong. what you are actually doing is something classically left wing. revelling in having a go at something else within the broad church that is the left.

[Spandex]

Originally posted by nikrem
@spandex. i totally agree mate. the guardian is a buisness and therefore exists to make money. all i was saying (from my standpoint of not regularly consuming/being programmed by any one brand of media and gleaning my information from a spread of sources) was simply that the guardian does, on occasion, contain the odd nugget, whereby our friend the daily mail spouts constant nazi shit.

Yeah. If I could ban only one paper... obviously I'd go for the Daily Mail over the Guardian. I still think it's worth being angry about the Guardian too :)

[nikrem]

wurd. every time i pick the g up i catch myself ranting.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by emma


wrong. what you are actually doing is something classically left wing. revelling in having a go at something else within the broad church that is the left.

The left wing doesn't tear itself apart for no reason, it does so because we are terrible at competing with conservatism, and keeping your ideals intact in an established capitalist world is hard work, we all give in now and then, like when the Guardian sold out.

[Spandex]

Originally posted by emma
wrong. what you are actually doing is something classically left wing. revelling in having a go at something else within the broad church that is the left.

Hehehe.. at what point do you abandon your notion of solidarity? When they're publishing "Tony's Decision on Iraq is Vindicated" or when they're saying "Well, we were against it, but now the law's passed we should all get behind the Home Secretary and help lock up the foreigners"? :)

It's utterly daft to say "you shouldn't criticise it cos it's left-wing"... even if you DO believe it's left-wing, which I think takes a peculiar effort in credulence in the first place.

[bitch one]

i wonder what specific bits of the guardian you critics are talking about tho? the news reporting seems pretty good to me. is it the opinion pieces you're talking about? in which case, so what? ignore them. or take them with a pinch of salt, it's just someone's opinion.

also, what's wrong with channel 4? their news is one of the best.

[Spandex]

I think the news is framed within a propaganda framework. The opinion pieces are even worse :)

I buy it sometimes and take things with a pinch of salt. Nobody I know believes everything they read in there. I know a lot of people who don't see it as a propaganda tool though... which i what I believe and am trying to persuade people of.

How would you rate my persuasiveness so far?

10 - Very Persuasive. Thanks for helping me escape the doctrinal system

5 - Quite Persuasive. I am beginning to suspect you have a point.

1 - Not Persasive At All. Feck off you smug bastad.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by bitch one
also, what's wrong with channel 4? their news is one of the best.

It is.

Channel 4 in general just seems to have dumbed down at an alarming rate in the past 3 years, make over shows, endless property programmes and other reality guff. These programmes are fair enough and entertaining but when was the last time you turned on channel 4 on a week night and it wasn't an endless stream of this guff. I don't think is a case of rose-tinted nostalgia because the decline has been really rapid.

[Brownthing]

I'm being thick I'm sure, but why do people keep calling it the grauniad?

[grobelaar]

I could be wrong here, but reading through this thread I detect amongst some posters a certain amount of cynicism surrounding the political and democratic processes in this country. Leading me to believe that underpinning this discussion is whether you believe democracy is working, or whether you think it is failing.

I believe the latter, off the top of my head – for the simple reason that if democracy truly works then the government would naturally gravitate toward a more socialist, ‘people serving’ agenda – like a lot of our European neighbours. Sadly I don’t think this is the case, the UK, like the US but to a lesser extent, is a more ‘power wielding’ government system (call it right wing if you wish to get involved in the semantics and marketing).

I’m no political scientist, but this my analysis of the situation – so democracy – working or failing? Maybe we should have a poll – mind you we’d have to do it per country…

[Spandex]

It's always called that in Private Eye... not sure why.. I think it might be cos they famously made lots of spelling mistakes?

[Spandex]

"I believe the latter, off the top of my head – for the simple reason that if democracy truly works then the government would naturally gravitate toward a more socialist, ‘people serving’ agenda"

I find that hard to argue with.

[bitch one]

Originally posted by Steev

when was the last time you turned on channel 4 on a week night and it wasn't an endless stream of this guff.

you will probably scoff, but i thought that jamie oliver school dinners prog was a very entertaining show, using a reality format to highlight a serious social problem in a way which will make the masses and the politicos take notice. v clever tv.

there's one example for you.

the recent cocaine documentaries also were top class.

and lots of other things i can't think of

[Spandex]

Originally posted by Spandex
I find that hard to argue with.

Steev just read that and PM'd me

steev says:
you sound dissapointed

:)

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Spandex
It's always called that in Private Eye... not sure why.. I think it might be cos they famously made lots of spelling mistakes?

correct.

[Lady E]

Originally posted by Spandex


Hehehe.. at what point do you abandon your notion of solidarity? When they're publishing "Tony's Decision on Iraq is Vindicated" or when they're saying "Well, we were against it, but now the law's passed we should all get behind the Home Secretary and help lock up the foreigners"? :)

It's utterly daft to say "you shouldn't criticise it cos it's left-wing"... even if you DO believe it's left-wing, which I think takes a peculiar effort in credulence in the first place.

im not saying that at all. im just saying, far from it being easier to attack the mail, most people on the left would prefer to take a pop at the guardian. so no point in patting yourselves on the back for your iconoclasm or slaughtering of sacred cows...just join the queue.

my own personal political views are not represented by any newspaper or party.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by emma


im not saying that at all. im just saying, far from it being easier to attack the mail, most people on the left would prefer to take a pop at the guardian. so no point in patting yourselves on the back for your iconoclasm or slaughtering of sacred cows...just join the queue.

That just doesnt make any sense, the Daily Mail is clearly the easiest newspaper to attack.

I don't 'prefer' to take a pop at the Guardian, I just find it a lot more valid because I understand and empathise with where it came from a lot more. Attacking the mail is like stealing candy from a baby.

[grobelaar]

Originally posted by bitch one


you will probably scoff, but i thought that jamie oliver school dinners prog was a very entertaining show, using a reality format


Before Big Brother it was called a Fly-On-The-Wall Documentary and I think Jamie's School Dinners is that.

Reality TV is something different, reality tv isn't informative (or at least it doesn't aim to be), it isn't scripted or at least structured. Reality TV is simply voyeurism edited and manipulated for dramatic effect.

Haven't seen JO's School Dinners - it could just be a plain documentary...

[bitch one]

yeah, i guess you right. it is a fly on the wall....but it's the contrived nature of the set-up that makes me think 'reality tv'

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by bitch one
yeah, i guess you right. it is a fly on the wall....but it's the contrived nature of the set-up that makes me think 'reality tv'

I havent seen it, but it does seem to have good intentions.. but then my girlfriend was saying how he threw a fit on it and said "It's not like i'm getting paid for this".. I mean if that not treating the audience as dumb animals I dunno what is.

[Spandex]

Originally posted by emma
my own personal political views are not represented by any newspaper or party.

I think that's true of most people... we're not represented by any party that's ever going to get into power anyway. Largely because the corporate press fails to inform the people about the issues they really care about.

Also, if you think it's easier to take a pop at the Guardian, try doing it on a message board full of lefties.. We'd hardly have had anyone here defending the Mail or saying "why not have a go at the Sunday Sport instead" would we? I think it's a real problem that people who genuinely want a fairer world see these papers as "the best we can get" when in fact they're a massive part of the problem and very much worth trying to change.

[Lady E]

jamie's school dinners was really good i agree with bitch one. i plan to be a teacher at some point and i think nutrition is an integral part of the education of the nation, which is so far reaching.

[bitch one]

yeah, it's very interesting - examining why kids only want chips. it's not just the lack of education, i think there is also a culture of 'eating chips is hard/eating greens is soft' among the kids and somehow we have to break through that, it's not easy, and it doesn't help that a lot of the kids only get chips etc when they go home too.

how can we have got into a situation where the govt thinks maths is more important than food? it's insane.

[Daddys Girl]

Originally posted by emma
i plan to be a teacher at some point and i think nutrition is an integral part of the education of the nation, which is so far reaching.

that's pretty cool emma - good luck when you do. my friend david went into teaching @ primary school level, and to him it's the best thing he's ever done...

[grobelaar]

Me and a friend are working on some kids animated educational stuff at the moment - was thinking of doing cooking - as it seems to have entirely disappeared from the school radar..

These days, people think that boiling up some 'fresh' pasta and adding a splash of Ragu is cooking...

[Orang Utan]

Originally posted by Steev


It is.

Channel 4 in general just seems to have dumbed down at an alarming rate in the past 3 years, make over shows, endless property programmes and other reality guff. These programmes are fair enough and entertaining but when was the last time you turned on channel 4 on a week night and it wasn't an endless stream of this guff. I don't think is a case of rose-tinted nostalgia because the decline has been really rapid.

Entirely agree - I think it's a shame - it's gonna get worse cos the new (ish) chief exec is a marketing man who made us all but Pot Noodles and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter

[Hagbard]

I had a good diet at home but I still caned the chips and hot dogs at school, I knew it was bad for me but you can't really expect Kids in general to have self control.. it just shouldn't be on the menu in the first place.

[grobelaar]

Does this thread get the award for being the most abstract and off-topic...

What shall we discuss next...

[Hagbard]

But this time I'm doing it to my own thread, keep it in the family.

[Spandex]

Anyone watch that "Brat Camp" thing? I'm utterly addicted. I like it when they make posh spoilt children cry.

[bitch one]

Originally posted by grobelaar
Does this thread get the award for being the most abstract and off-topic...

What shall we discuss next...

it's almost like a conversation

[grobelaar]

What about Ray Mears - he is the man - I love his programmes, there was one on last night - he was basically examining how stone age man would have lived and doing lots of practical shit himself - like skinning deer with a lump of flint, cooking it in an oven built in a whole in the ground - just using sticks and the like.

It ended with him doing some cave paintings - and using his own hand as a sort stencil and spitting paint out of his own mouth - to leave his mark - like a prehistoric tag.

[bitch one]

i really like him but he also makes me laugh, he can be totally daft

[Orang Utan]

David Attenborough is THE MAN - I will be very sad when he dies (a bit morbid, but I was thinking about who else would miss after Peely popped his clogs)

[grobelaar]

Originally posted by bitch one
i really like him but he also makes me laugh, he can be totally daft

Daft? How? I don't doubt it, but I don't remember any daftness - but maybe I'm just daft too...

Always like the outdoors, when I was kid my grandad got me the SAS survival handbook - it's the best thing to get a boy - it even tells you how to make deadfall mantraps - like the ones that Rocky makes in the film Rambo... :)

[pongoid]

Originally posted by emma
i plan to be a teacher at some point and i think nutrition is an integral part of the education of the nation, which is so far reaching.

Good on ya! Maybe while you're at it, responsible sex ed as well. How to eat cheap and healthy, and not have to go on the dole to raise multiple children as a single parent would be a fucking good start to making the western world a much better place. If that's a path you choose to further illuminate, then hats off to you!!

[Lady E]

Originally posted by pongoid


Good on ya! Maybe while you're at it, responsible sex ed as well. How to eat cheap and healthy, and not have to go on the dole to raise multiple children as a single parent would be a fucking good start to making the western world a much better place. If that's a path you choose to further illuminate, then hats off to you!!

i agree pongoid, but i will be a secondary english teacher so i dont know how much of that would be my responsibility.

quite a lot of sex came up during my English A levels, i seem to remember, by which time it was old news. DH Lawrence, Antony and Cleopatra...

[Lady E]

Originally posted by bitch one
i really like him but he also makes me laugh, he can be totally daft

last night he made me cringe a couple of times - 1. ken hom impression 2. rolf harris impression

ray. i love you, but no.

it was the second time id seen that programme as well.

[bitch one]

comedown rant removed

[Brownthing]

Check out the frontpages of the Guardian and the Daily Mail today to see some real unbiased reporting at work:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/3_march_2005/html/1.stm

a new, large prime numbner discovered:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1428430,00.html

[V Knid esq]

I discovered the biggest number ever whilst going through some Ayahuasca-assisted mental excercises, but I dropped it and it rolled under the bed, and when I got it out it was all bent and covered in fluff, and wouldn't work properly any more.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Brownthing
Check out the frontpages of the Guardian and the Daily Mail today to see some real unbiased reporting at work:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/3_march_2005/html/1.stm

Buy the Guardian and weep, buy the Mail and vomit.

[Laszlo]

How the fuck do you all have to time to write such long posts

Steev - Emma & Spandex...you're all hard as fucking nails.

I like Amando Ianuucci's quote saying that you know you're getting old when you ask the barber to trim your eye brows and the Guardian annoys you.

The Guardian has been turning my stomach for years now.......but there was simply a wonderful little recipe for asian belly pork in there a few weeks ago.

We're all cunts.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Laszlo
The Guardian has been turning my stomach for years now.......but there was simply a wonderful little recipe for asian belly pork in there a few weeks ago.

We're all cunts.

Except you're a cunt AND you buy the Guardian now and then.

[V Knid esq]

Hahaha I'm a right cunt, I gave it up because it was too snidey, and only buy it on Thursday for the science section WORRA WANKER EH

[Laszlo]

....Yeah I am a cunt.....but Jo buys the Guardian, I gave up papers a long time ago.

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by Laszlo
....Yeah I am a cunt.....but Jo buys the Guardian, I gave up papers a long time ago.

You fink.

[Laszlo]

I'm over it, I can deal with it OK, I don't need Monty's garden help of Nigels lentil creations.

I'm free...OK? - fuck you

[Hagbard]

I like it, Guardian withdrawal chic. Nearly as sexy as a bony Kate Moss.