After being exposed to endless quotations in a workplace obsessed with the show and feeling almightily left out, I am now watching the entirety of Peep Show to make use of my evenings. On the second series currently...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39232973 Boaty McBoatface starts its first adventure. OK...they couldn't give the name to a £200 million research vessel, but this was a good compromise that puts a smile on your face and I bet on the crew's as well.
Watched it last night after finishing The Night Manager. The fact that I enjoyed it after watching stupendous TV beforehand says a lot. Chris Harris had annoyed me from the off but is doing it less so now in prog 2. Rory Reid is nice guy, inoffensively OK, and Matt LeBlanc is fine and finally taking his place as lead presenter, after series one in which it seemed as if he didn't know whether he was the star or the number two. I do think when they invite the celebrities on the show that LeBlanc would rather be sitting in their chair, but that's just my impression. The show is slightly quieter [apart from angry Mr Harris] and less overtly stupid [Clarkson's departure] than it used to be and it takes a little getting used to, but it's all about adjustment. Honestly though, I think I preferred it when it used to feature day to day cars and bikes, did proper road tests and gave out proper information, because Top Gear's evolution means that the informative entertaining kind of motoring programme can no longer exist, and there ought to be one. Fifth Gear, for example, went from informative programme to being a less lavish TG clone. What I'm saying is, if there was room for the two types of programme I'd have both. If only one, I'd prefer the information based type.
You want the Quattrothingummyjiggy thing which s £60k. If they put that on your company car list, I want to come and work for you!
We live in ADHD times though where everything needs to be simple and brash and requiring little thought in order to hold people's attention (see music for details). I may have mentioned it on here, can't remember, but I started watching the original series of The Incredible Hulk (the one with Lou Ferrigno) on the Horror Channel recently. I couldn't believe how SLOW it was in comparison to modern dramas, but distinctly recall it being very exciting back in the day. Different times.
There's always the fact that The Incredible Hulk, from the late 70's, was a pile of **** anyway. But you may have been too young to notice.
Never revisit your heroes. At 16, I loved Adam Adamant.....saw an episode decades later and it positively creaked because television is so much more sophisticated now. It looked like they were filming a stage play....which they basically were. Comedies fare better because our sense of humour doesn't change.
I absolutely loved Adam Adamant, but I'd dare not go back and watch it again, as I know it would look terrible. People talk about "classic TV" and, perhaps, some of it was, but it was different and a lot of it (as you say, apart from humour) doesn't tend to age well - unlike most of us on here .....
European Court has ruled that employers can ban religious symbols, such as head scarves etc. I agree about anything that covers the face....gets in the way of social interaction and should be banned.....but not headscarves, turbans, crosses, Stars of David etc Surely we are adult enough to be able to accept people's differences.
They were saying on the news just now that it was because the company in question had an existing policy of neutrality regarding religion, politics etc. I'm not sure this is a good decision because companies if they wished could introduce this policy which would mean that when employing people they could discriminate and hide behind this policy. Like you I see nothing wrong with wearing these items as long as they do not cover the face. My dentist wears a headscarf which does not affect her competence (thankfully!) and she is a lovely lady.
http://news.sky.com/story/fell-runn...or-attempted-murder-over-samples-row-10801631 Trans fell runner jailed for stabbing a run official after her results were voided because she had not supplied samples for testosterone testing. Ignoring the crime, I don't think it is right for male to female transgenders to compete in female events. Even if their hormone levels fall within the 'normal' range because of hormone treatment, they will still have had many years of growing up with high testosterone levels. No one questions their rights to live how they like, but they have to accept that the door is closed on competitive sport and, after all, it will only affect a small number of people. A different issue was raised in the US where a female to male trans person, blocked from entering a male competition, entered a female event and won despite having artificially raised testosterone levels. Human rights include many things, but the right to enter a sporting competition where you have such an advantage isn't one of them.
Know what you mean, but it really depends on the format and the genre. Movie film, for example, can still be quite relevant and highly enjoyable, because the production values were so high and the scripts and the acting were generally better than TV. The best are considered classics and stand up very well. The best of these best tend to be historical in context or depicting an event in time. TV doesn't fair so well because there have been so many major jumps in innovation in the format in the last, say 30-40 years, such as high resolution and widescreen, and consequent need to raise of production standards [no more wobbly sets], that previous productions just can't compete. If you have an immense soft spot for an old series you can overcome these obstacles, but it's hard. I can watch a 1970's episode of The Onedin Line and find myself quite forgetting its dated technology. And, if I give myself 10 minutes to get used to it, I can watch a 1970's episode of Poldark still, and enjoy it. Notably, they are both stories set in times past. Anything contemporary becomes hugely dated. The Sweeney.?
Apologies for the long post but this is something worth caring about and hopefully worth reading and at least considering. I expect that some of you are already donating bits of yourself for transplant after you've kicked the bucket. However, you've probably not considered your brain. I'm not sure about any of you but I'm pretty certain that after I've died I probably won't be using my brain too much; I'll be far too busy gently rotting away to care greatly. So it seems rather surplus to requirements. Now medicine is not at a stage where we can transplant a brain. Even if we could then, frankly, I'd firmly counsel anyone not to have mine, regardless of how desperate their need might be. It's equipped with a thoroughly unpleasant personality, is squalid, has too little storage space for names and regularly forgets why I even came into the kitchen in the first place. So, not suitable for transplant. However, there's a horrible illness that steals people of their minds while leaving them in their bodies: dementia. It's a vile condition that robs people of everything that makes them the people you love and turns them into empty shells. So, is there a way to tie the two together? Would I be writing this post if not? Brains for Dementia Research are desperate for healthy brains for research. They have lots of dementia affected brains but lack healthy ones for comparison. If you sign up to donate they'll take your brain once your other donated bits have been harvested. You need to be 50 or over (officially the minimum age is higher but they are so short they told me they'll have it early - hopefully they'll wait till I'm dead, though) Please at least consider it: after you're dead you can do your bit to rid the world of this vile and degrading scourge. Details at: http://www.brainsfordementiaresearch.org.uk/ (though bizarrely it's only in the FAQs that they mention how desperate they are for healthy brains). There are lists of centres on there. The one for Southampton is Bristol, where you might speak to the delightful Dr Laura Palmer on 0117 414 7821 during office hours (email [email protected] ). She'll sort out the paperwork (about five minutes, max) and as part of the deal you get to keep your brain right up until you stop using it. Vin
Already done this a couple of years ago. Agree with this 100%. Donate your body to science and/or medical needs. You have no further use for it when you go. Have that conversation with relatives as soon as you can and tell then what you want done with your organs. My Mum turned 102 [oops, not 103] the other day. Her form of dementia is just the old fashioned senile type. She just about recognises me as the brother one up from me. It needn't be that way. She could be much better. A very good friend from way back is only 67 and lost the power of speech a couple of days ago. Over the years he's had a small series of mini-strokes and each time he gets a little different. This time it was a tipping point. Parts of his brain are atrophied and he has the posture and brain function of a centenarian. All in a 67 year old body. We're lucky. Let's donate our luck when we don't need it anymore.
