"echinosum" wrote


David Hill;973844 Wrote:
So are we due for the end of the world?

So should I forget about a turkey?
Ends of the world are frequently predicted, but have not so far come
about. As far as I can see, no prediction has been on any grounds other
than magic, and since magic doesn't seem to be real, the predictions
lack credibility.

But I would forget about the turkey. Goose is much nicer. In fact just
about anything is nicer than turkey. Some of our recent christmas
dinners have been ham, venison, and duck.

I used to feel the same about Turkey but the last few years we have been
buying the more expensive "Bronze" turkey from our Butcher and they actually
have taste.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

In article , Martin Brown
writes
Apparently some hill in the high Pyrennees will be saved and the local
mayor is preparing for an invasion of credulous lunatics.


And how on earth did the Mayans know about the Pyrenees then?
--
Janet Tweedy

On 28/11/2012 19:59, Janet Tweedy wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
writes
Apparently some hill in the high Pyrennees will be saved and the local
mayor is preparing for an invasion of credulous lunatics.


And how on earth did the Mayans know about the Pyrenees then?

I dunno. Someone posted this claim on the Internet and it is apparently
now widely believed in the world of credulous nutters.

Jocelyn Bell-Burnell gave a Royal Society talk bemoaning the increase in
nutty doomsday cults - she was being asked this question a lot! and
assessing the relative risks of the various real EOTWAWKI scenarios.

Mainly it is making the point about the difficulty in communicating real
science to the public without getting shock horror scare stories.

http://royalsociety.org/events/2011/end-world/

I have decided on balance that this time we should aim to let as many
credulous nutters as possible part with all their worldly goods...

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Martin
writes

Rumours get around. They probably read about them in the Daily Mail.

Serve them right then ..........

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Martin Brown
writes
I have decided on balance that this time we should aim to let as many
credulous nutters as possible part with all their worldly goods...

Regards,
Martin Brown


So bargains on Ebay then? I was always told to go on, on Boxing day and
insert the phrase "unwanted Christmas present" into the search engine
for the best bargains Wonder if anyone's selling their cloches?
--
Janet Tweedy

Seems to be a decreasing understanding generally of what science is -witness, for example, the frequent reference to Darwin's book as "the Bible" of evolutionists, the portrayal in the media of scientific theorems as belief systems, and the apparently perceived need by the media to counter any scientific theory with a piece by an opposing nutter, as if scientific theories were political points of view.

I suspect it's an inevitable consequence of the popular portrayal over the last 30 years of scientists as nerds with no social life. Why would anybody want to develop any understanding of science?

Sacha wrote in
:

On 2012-11-28 14:18:29 +0000, Baz said:

Martin Brown wrote in
news:gJmts.13343 :
snip

My favourite all time advert was the Levi's rivets ad in the ~70's,
followed closely by the Gods minting BA tickets about the same time.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Subliminal advertising? One of many good reasons why not to watch a
tv company or channel with advertisements.

Baz

We don't have subliminal advertising.

Thats true, Sacha, but the same advert. repeated over and over and then
over and over again is IMO an attempt to "brainwash" the viewer. Either
that or they regard their viewers as brain damaged and need to be reminded
every few minutes. I find it impossible now to watch any channel with
adverts. You are right though, the adverts are more interesting than the
programmes. How bad can that be?

Baz

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:06:40 +0000, Sacha wrote:

Subliminal advertising? One of many good reasons why not to watch a tv
company or channel with advertisements.

We don't have subliminal advertising. It's illegal in UK.

Well the flash frame type stuff is but I sometimes think the ad agencies
come up with an ad that make people talk about the ad as they don't know
what the ad was advertising... Then they find out and it "sticks" a bit
better in the mind.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:48:30 +0000, Sacha wrote:

I don't think advertisers have realised that sometimes people can be so
irritated by repetitive showing of an ad that it can put them off the
product through sheer annoyance!

I can't stand TV adverts at all. I never buy advertised products. I
don't mind product announcements or even the occasional sponsorship
but I rarely see a TV advert. If I want to watch a program on any of
the commercial channels I record it and skip the adverts.

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

I don't think advertisers have realised that sometimes people can be so
irritated by repetitive showing of an ad that it can put them off the
product through sheer annoyance! I mean - how many cheap sofas does
anyone need?! The other interesting thing, my brother told me a long
time ago, is that having someone very famous in an ad can actually
detract from the product because all the public remember is the actor.
He created the now long-ago ad for WH Smith in which Nicholas Lyndhurst
played every member of a family and that was hugely successful because
it was funny but also because of the attention-holding novelty of 1 well
known person seen in many guises. If an ad is like a little playlet, it
holds the attention. The awful droning on ads that relentlessly push
have a negative effect, imo.


Who doesn't remember Oxo Katie?
Well discounting the youngsters.

"David Hill" wrote in message
...

I don't think advertisers have realised that sometimes people can be so
irritated by repetitive showing of an ad that it can put them off the
product through sheer annoyance! I mean - how many cheap sofas does
anyone need?! The other interesting thing, my brother told me a long
time ago, is that having someone very famous in an ad can actually
detract from the product because all the public remember is the actor.
He created the now long-ago ad for WH Smith in which Nicholas Lyndhurst
played every member of a family and that was hugely successful because
it was funny but also because of the attention-holding novelty of 1 well
known person seen in many guises. If an ad is like a little playlet, it
holds the attention. The awful droning on ads that relentlessly push
have a negative effect, imo.


Who doesn't remember Oxo Katie?
Well discounting the youngsters.

Yes I remember Katie, but who can remember the adverts which ended with "We
want to be together"? AND, which company?

Mike


--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

If an ad is like a little playlet, it
holds the attention. The awful droning on ads that relentlessly push
have a negative effect, imo.


Tom and i were always a bit bemused by adverts that seem to condone
cruel behaviour as the advert where the grownups send the children into
the garden to hunt for sweets but have kept them all for themselves
really. We never thought that was funny - seems just nasty
--
Janet Tweedy

In article , Martin
writes
So bargains on Ebay then? I was always told to go on, on Boxing day and
insert the phrase "unwanted Christmas present" into the search engine
for the best bargains Wonder if anyone's selling their cloches?

With all these gales, first you have to catch one.
--

Martin


Well maybe they find one they don't want blown into their garden
--
Janet Tweedy

On 29/11/2012 10:23, kay wrote:
Martin Brown;973949 Wrote:

Jocelyn Bell-Burnell gave a Royal Society talk bemoaning the increase in

nutty doomsday cults - she was being asked this question a lot! and
assessing the relative risks of the various real EOTWAWKI scenarios.

Mainly it is making the point about the difficulty in communicating real

science to the public without getting shock horror scare stories.


Seems to be a decreasing understanding generally of what science is
-witness, for example, the frequent reference to Darwin's book as "the
Bible" of evolutionists,

That's a quirk of the US Rilegious Right influencing global thinking
towards superstitious anti-science and Bishop Ushers estimate of the age
of the world (which at the time was reasonable given his data).

Lord Kelvin pretty much crucified Darwin's theory of evolution when it
was first published by demonstrating conclusively that no known fuel
could possibly power the sun for as long as geology and evolution
required. This was a powerful counter argument at the time.

Modern airbrushing of scientific history rewrites this to say that he
suggested nuclear power sources. He did no such thing. He was trying to
prove evolution impossible because there was insufficient time for it.
Kelvin was brilliant in many other ways but he called this one wrong.

the portrayal in the media of scientific
theorems as belief systems, and the apparently perceived need by the
media to counter any scientific theory with a piece by an opposing
nutter, as if scientific theories were political points of view.

That is because news programs these days are all edited by luvvies who
were never very good at maths or science and see "balance" as meaning
having two opposing views for every topic no matter how wild and crazy
one side is. Sometimes I think they do it deliberately.

The biggest problem is that the drunken inbred halfwit from one of the
flyover states who claims to have been abducted and molested by
Venusians always has a very much more interesting story to tell than the
scientist who says the guy had had a skinful in a bar and then fell
asleep at the wheel on the way home late at night.

I suspect it's an inevitable consequence of the popular portrayal over
the last 30 years of scientists as nerds with no social life. Why would
anybody want to develop any understanding of science?

The way it was put to me by a classicist at university was
"why be a scientist when you can be a scientists boss?"

The answer is because science is more fun. Scientists do science because
they never lose that curiosity of "I wonder what happens if ..."

Anyway we are not doing too bad at the moment. Hard sciences like maths
and physics have never been more popular since the NASA moonshot era
with the likes of Brian May, Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili making it sexy
once again to do physics and chemistry. As an astronomer I think it is a
bit naughty of him to poach on our territory but if he gets the message
across and encourages public interest in science I don't care!

The lack of good careers for science and engineering graduates in the UK
is one reason why we have fallen behind Germany and Japan. The bean
counters rule everything here and the result is very uninspiring.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...

If an ad is like a little playlet, it
holds the attention. The awful droning on ads that relentlessly push
have a negative effect, imo.


Tom and i were always a bit bemused by adverts that seem to condone cruel
behaviour as the advert where the grownups send the children into the
garden to hunt for sweets but have kept them all for themselves really. We
never thought that was funny - seems just nasty

Yes I don't like stuff like that either
--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/