Dogs can enjoy a beer without feeling "ruff" with the invention of a no-alcohol beer for your four-legged friend.
 |  |
I have said before that it's more important what the message is, than who is saying it, yes? That if the message is right, it doesn't matter if it's a hateful person saying it, and if the message is wrong, it doesn't matter if it's your best friend?
I had a bit of a failure with that recently (and yes, all the people who've commented that what he said was good, I do believe you, I just can't read even his name without the red mist descending), but today I wish to report a major victory. I'm listening to Woman's Hour, and I am agreeing with Harriet HarPerson!
* proud smiles *
I hate that woman, and almost everything she stands for, and yet on women and the family this morning, she has been absolutely spot on.
A newsflash for Anastasia Civitas and Maria ToryBird: you've got it completely arse about face! It's not that low income people are less likely to have committed relationships, it's that if you aren't in a committed relationship, it's likely your income will suffer! Your proposed
The bad thing is that still, even now, people often do not split up when they ought to because of financial pressures. Yes, you're right that children of two-parent families DO generally do better, but that is almost exclusively to do with time and money spent on the child, not to do with the marital status or sexuality or whatever of the parents. Children with grandparents generally do better than children without; does this mean it should be government policy to make grandparents rise from the grave if they snuff it? Of course not.
Instead of trying to force people to live the
Anyway, I agree with the HarPerson. And the world is still turning on it's axis. You watch, I shall be agreeing with Hazel Blears next. Well, if she can actually settle on an opinion of her own for a few minutes...
I had a bit of a failure with that recently (and yes, all the people who've commented that what he said was good, I do believe you, I just can't read even his name without the red mist descending), but today I wish to report a major victory. I'm listening to Woman's Hour, and I am agreeing with Harriet HarPerson!
* proud smiles *
I hate that woman, and almost everything she stands for, and yet on women and the family this morning, she has been absolutely spot on.
A newsflash for Anastasia Civitas and Maria ToryBird: you've got it completely arse about face! It's not that low income people are less likely to have committed relationships, it's that if you aren't in a committed relationship, it's likely your income will suffer! Your proposed
solutionis going to make this WORSE, not better! People don't split up because they think they'll get more benefits. If that was the case, I would be telling Mat to F off right this minute because I was much more financially stable before he moved in... People move in together and/or get married because they love each other, and they split up because the relationship is no longer working. A higher divorce rate is NOT a sign of the oncoming apocalypse, it's a sign that people are not putting up with shitty relationships any more because of stupid social pressures. It's a good thing!
The bad thing is that still, even now, people often do not split up when they ought to because of financial pressures. Yes, you're right that children of two-parent families DO generally do better, but that is almost exclusively to do with time and money spent on the child, not to do with the marital status or sexuality or whatever of the parents. Children with grandparents generally do better than children without; does this mean it should be government policy to make grandparents rise from the grave if they snuff it? Of course not.
Instead of trying to force people to live the
correctway, can we not just try to accept people as they are and work with that? Or is that just a bit too tolerant and liberal? I think all of the political parties could do with thinking about that. There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to accept each other, or to think about the consequences of their actions, but trying to push or pull them into making moral choices that government has no business poking it's nose into... Gah. I stop ranting now.
Anyway, I agree with the HarPerson. And the world is still turning on it's axis. You watch, I shall be agreeing with Hazel Blears next. Well, if she can actually settle on an opinion of her own for a few minutes...
- Mood:
aggravated
Given all the cells in your body get replaced within seven years, why are tattoos permanent? How does the ink stay put?
(I'm glad it does. I love my tattoos, and I'd be really pissed off if I had to keep getting them re-done.)
(I'm glad it does. I love my tattoos, and I'd be really pissed off if I had to keep getting them re-done.)
- Location:Bethan's place
- Mood:
curious - Music:Moseley Shoals - Ocean Colour Scene
On Saturday I headed to Northwood to play in yet another Scrabble tournament. My rating of 142 just about qualified me to play in A division, but I was the second to lowest person in that group, so I wasn't expected to perform to well. Secretly though, I was hoping for at least three wins and a chance to push my rating a bit higher. The tournament was seven games long, instead of six.
Game 1
If I was to do well in this division, I probably needed a bit of luck. When my opponent opened with two bonuses in his first two moves (RELIEVE, then hERITAGE) I was already 100 points behind. I managed a bonus of my own (FASTESt) but my opponent was scoring 30-40 on each turn, before playing his third bonus of TILLIER. I was able to get one more bonus myself with SABOTIER, but it was nowhere near enough. After just 12 moves each it was all over, and I had been crushed by 501-349.
Game 2
My opponent changed on his first move but followed that up with lINKAGE for 83, while I struggled to balance a vowel-heavy rack. I played off three vowels and picked up three more. I changed three on my next turn... and picked up three more. Meanwhile my opponent had bonussed again with HARTENS. I finally managed one bonus of my own with SPINATE, but I was still 150 points behind. My opponent had picked up the second blank and another S for DusTERS. The first game had been bad for me. This one was atrocious. The final score was 506-297. After just two games I had no wins, a spread of -361 and I was rock bottom of the table.
Game 3
I tried not to dwell, I really did. The next game started fairly evenly. I caught a break when my opponent tried to put an S on the end of JIMP. I shallenged and the sheet came back with a cross, but two moves later my opponent put down a double blank bonus of ATTaiNT for 65, followed by QUOTE for 48. After 8 balancing moves I had finally managed a good rack though, and put down OSSETRA for 89, hooking the R on to the end of QUOTE. I was now slightly ahead and I was able to consolidate that over the next few moves. My opponent appeared to be tile-fishing for a winning bonus and he finally spotted AIRSIDE for 63 to put him just 11 points behind me. I was lucky though, because if he'd known that TAO takes an S he would have scored much more. I was able to slot BEAM over the top of AIRSIDE for 42, and record a narrow win by 413-395.
I was relieved to go into lunch with one win to my name. With just one blank from my first three games, I didn't feel I'd enjoyed a lot of the luck so far. But then I wouldn't have seen ATTAINT, and I wouldn't have risked TILLIER. Word knowledge matters a lot more than luck.
Game 4
What was I saying about luck? Another vowel-heavy rack and I played EUOI for 8 points on my first move. The pick-up was finally good for me, and I put down SEAMIER for 64 on my next turn. But my opponent responded with EXPAND for 64 and DEPRIVED for 67 on his next two moves to take the lead. Once again I was playing catch-up. I picked a blank though and put down REGALeS a few moves later to level the scores. My pick up was the second blank! The only problem was I had drawn six vowels to accompany it. With the scores so close I wasn't sure whether to change vowels or try to play through them. In the end, I elected to change. It proved to be the right decision as I put down AVErSION two moves later for 83. My opponent ran his clock down looking hard for a way to stop me but I had just about done enough for my second win, by 417-405. Finally it seemed like I was gettng a little luck.
Game 5
With a rating of 169, this was the highest ranked person I'd played today. LOONIES for 72 on his third move gave him an early lead. I had SATINE bonuses on my rack, but couldn't fit them in. DJINS for 63 was a reasonable alternative though. But then my opponent put down his second bonus of sURTOUT ( I wouldn't have spotted that one). I missed several eight letter bonuses which I probably should have seen, before I managed ALIENATE for 62. I was still 80 points behind though. My opponent played PRAW* for 45. I challenged nmore in hope than anything else and to both our surprise, it came back with a cross. My opponent sent it for a re-check, but it really wasn;t good. I was able to play IBEX for 80 where PRAW* had been taken off and I was suddenly in the lead, narrowly! My opponent had the second plank though, and used it to play WAQFs for 45. Meanwhile my last five letters were GKLOT. There was no A to play on to and I ended up losing by 425-386.
Game 6
Yet again I fell behind to an early bonus of CATENAE. I played desperate blancing and tile-fishing moves and finally managed NAILERS for 77. Once again, however, my opponent had drawn both blank tiles, and used them to play ReGOsOL. It was then just a case of going through the motions to record yet another defeat by 426-348.
Game 7
My head had dropped by now. From six games I had managed to gather just three blank tiles. I had struggled with either vowel-heavy or consonant-heavy racks all day. I didn't feel confident at all going into this game. I was pretty much expecting to lose again, which is entirely the wrong state of mind to be in. If you expect to lose, if you expect the tiles to go against you, you tend to play without proper care or consideration. And so it was in this game. As my opponent used the J, X and Z in his first three moves for 30+ each time, followed by the bonus play of IGNITERS on move four, I found myself with a surfeit of Us and Is and played them off for middling scores. I wasn't really thinking long enough about what I should play. I did manage to draw a precious blank tile and used it to play TOORIEs (after missing a host of bonuses on the turn before through not trying hard enough). My opponent got the second plank though and used it to play REPENTS. I managed one more bonus (ARENOSE for 81) but this game was another lost cause and the final score was 455-357.
I had managed just two wins out of seven. I hadn't played well and I'd let some bad luck ruin the generally positive attitude I try to take, meaning I pobably played sub-optimally in my last two games, at least. My performance rating for the day was just 135. Rating is based on the last 100 played games though, and the games dropping off my last 100 list were only rated at around 120, so my final rating remains at 142, for now. If I keep playing as badly as I did on Saturday, it won't be up there for long though.
-x-
Game 1
If I was to do well in this division, I probably needed a bit of luck. When my opponent opened with two bonuses in his first two moves (RELIEVE, then hERITAGE) I was already 100 points behind. I managed a bonus of my own (FASTESt) but my opponent was scoring 30-40 on each turn, before playing his third bonus of TILLIER. I was able to get one more bonus myself with SABOTIER, but it was nowhere near enough. After just 12 moves each it was all over, and I had been crushed by 501-349.
Game 2
My opponent changed on his first move but followed that up with lINKAGE for 83, while I struggled to balance a vowel-heavy rack. I played off three vowels and picked up three more. I changed three on my next turn... and picked up three more. Meanwhile my opponent had bonussed again with HARTENS. I finally managed one bonus of my own with SPINATE, but I was still 150 points behind. My opponent had picked up the second blank and another S for DusTERS. The first game had been bad for me. This one was atrocious. The final score was 506-297. After just two games I had no wins, a spread of -361 and I was rock bottom of the table.
Game 3
I tried not to dwell, I really did. The next game started fairly evenly. I caught a break when my opponent tried to put an S on the end of JIMP. I shallenged and the sheet came back with a cross, but two moves later my opponent put down a double blank bonus of ATTaiNT for 65, followed by QUOTE for 48. After 8 balancing moves I had finally managed a good rack though, and put down OSSETRA for 89, hooking the R on to the end of QUOTE. I was now slightly ahead and I was able to consolidate that over the next few moves. My opponent appeared to be tile-fishing for a winning bonus and he finally spotted AIRSIDE for 63 to put him just 11 points behind me. I was lucky though, because if he'd known that TAO takes an S he would have scored much more. I was able to slot BEAM over the top of AIRSIDE for 42, and record a narrow win by 413-395.
I was relieved to go into lunch with one win to my name. With just one blank from my first three games, I didn't feel I'd enjoyed a lot of the luck so far. But then I wouldn't have seen ATTAINT, and I wouldn't have risked TILLIER. Word knowledge matters a lot more than luck.
Game 4
What was I saying about luck? Another vowel-heavy rack and I played EUOI for 8 points on my first move. The pick-up was finally good for me, and I put down SEAMIER for 64 on my next turn. But my opponent responded with EXPAND for 64 and DEPRIVED for 67 on his next two moves to take the lead. Once again I was playing catch-up. I picked a blank though and put down REGALeS a few moves later to level the scores. My pick up was the second blank! The only problem was I had drawn six vowels to accompany it. With the scores so close I wasn't sure whether to change vowels or try to play through them. In the end, I elected to change. It proved to be the right decision as I put down AVErSION two moves later for 83. My opponent ran his clock down looking hard for a way to stop me but I had just about done enough for my second win, by 417-405. Finally it seemed like I was gettng a little luck.
Game 5
With a rating of 169, this was the highest ranked person I'd played today. LOONIES for 72 on his third move gave him an early lead. I had SATINE bonuses on my rack, but couldn't fit them in. DJINS for 63 was a reasonable alternative though. But then my opponent put down his second bonus of sURTOUT ( I wouldn't have spotted that one). I missed several eight letter bonuses which I probably should have seen, before I managed ALIENATE for 62. I was still 80 points behind though. My opponent played PRAW* for 45. I challenged nmore in hope than anything else and to both our surprise, it came back with a cross. My opponent sent it for a re-check, but it really wasn;t good. I was able to play IBEX for 80 where PRAW* had been taken off and I was suddenly in the lead, narrowly! My opponent had the second plank though, and used it to play WAQFs for 45. Meanwhile my last five letters were GKLOT. There was no A to play on to and I ended up losing by 425-386.
Game 6
Yet again I fell behind to an early bonus of CATENAE. I played desperate blancing and tile-fishing moves and finally managed NAILERS for 77. Once again, however, my opponent had drawn both blank tiles, and used them to play ReGOsOL. It was then just a case of going through the motions to record yet another defeat by 426-348.
Game 7
My head had dropped by now. From six games I had managed to gather just three blank tiles. I had struggled with either vowel-heavy or consonant-heavy racks all day. I didn't feel confident at all going into this game. I was pretty much expecting to lose again, which is entirely the wrong state of mind to be in. If you expect to lose, if you expect the tiles to go against you, you tend to play without proper care or consideration. And so it was in this game. As my opponent used the J, X and Z in his first three moves for 30+ each time, followed by the bonus play of IGNITERS on move four, I found myself with a surfeit of Us and Is and played them off for middling scores. I wasn't really thinking long enough about what I should play. I did manage to draw a precious blank tile and used it to play TOORIEs (after missing a host of bonuses on the turn before through not trying hard enough). My opponent got the second plank though and used it to play REPENTS. I managed one more bonus (ARENOSE for 81) but this game was another lost cause and the final score was 455-357.
I had managed just two wins out of seven. I hadn't played well and I'd let some bad luck ruin the generally positive attitude I try to take, meaning I pobably played sub-optimally in my last two games, at least. My performance rating for the day was just 135. Rating is based on the last 100 played games though, and the games dropping off my last 100 list were only rated at around 120, so my final rating remains at 142, for now. If I keep playing as badly as I did on Saturday, it won't be up there for long though.
-x-
SWITZERLAND: A hotel guest toppled to his death from a balcony during a spitting contest with a friend.
| |
Cult cartoon character Hello Kitty is to become a goodwill tourism ambassador for Japan aimed at getting more people to visit the country.
| |
By Andrew Grice Reading Cherie Blair's much-panned memoirs, I took a special interest in her confirmation that the Blairs' youngest son Leo was given the MMR vaccine. I revealed this on the front page of The Independent in February 2002....
By Andrew Keen Like ill-fated lovers, Microsoft and Yahoo! don't seem to be able to either live together or apart. From maybe having a deal to not having a deal to rejecting a deal to maybe having a deal, every...
You may remember I exposed Andrew Gilligan's hypocrisy two weeks when I pointed out he also worked for the television channel Press TV, funded by the Iranian government.
Andrew Gilligan likes to make a great deal of noise about how he's such a progressive and left-wing journalist...yada yada. He even ...
Andrew Gilligan likes to make a great deal of noise about how he's such a progressive and left-wing journalist...yada yada. He even ...
About
This is my personal general interest journal where I write about or link to whatever I've fond that amused, intrigued or enraged me at the time. I'm a committed liberal, equalist and atheist, but I really like it when people can demonstrate I'm wrong, and have close friends with whom I completely disagree on some if not all of those points.
There probably ought to be a Creative Commons licence in here somewhere but in the meantime consider this permission to quote me (link) & link to what I write.
If you decide to keep reading, please do say hello, let me know where you found me from, etc. I promise not to bite (well, unless you want me to...)
Page Summary
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif)
metro_weird : Scooby brew for man's best friend [+0] ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif)
theyorkshergob :: ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
snapesbabe : Harriet HarPerson - Stop the Presses! [+0] - frightened : A question Bethan asked and I couldn't answer [+4]
- publicansdecoy : Northwood report [+1]
- metro_weird : Spitting Swiss plunges from balcony [+0]
- metro_weird : Hello Kitty becomes Japanese ambassador [+0]
- metro_weird : Web couple celebrate 25 years of marriage [+0]
- sleep_rd_blog_f : Today in Politics: Cherie and the MMR mystery [+0]
- sleep_rd_blog_f : Keen on New Media: Microsoft-Yahoo! part XVI (yawn) [+0]
- liberalconsp_fd : Andrew Gilligan’s employer promoting holocaust denial [+0]
Profile
- matgb
- Mat Bowles
- Mat Bowles