Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

or you could be cynical and imagine that the geneticists are de facto the pharmacists for the drug company that sells ritolin.

[jimbo]

or you could be cynical and imagine that the geneticists are de facto the pharmacists for the drug company that sells ritolin.

Indeed, though again that would have to be declared on the paper - something again a journalist looking for a story wouldn't consider. The problem is we have journalists writing about such things with no medical knowledge and no idea how to critically appraise an article. That leads to bullshit stories giving the public wrong ideas about healthcare.

[CAPSLOCK]

Not angry, but there aint a 'what a sad set of bastards' thread

Twitter users

I can see why folk may be remotely interested in what a 'personality' is up to, but Si from Halliwells going to Maccies?

WTF

Similarly status updates on Facebook

[thebish]

or you could be cynical and imagine that the geneticists are de facto the pharmacists for the drug company that sells ritolin.

Indeed, though again that would have to be declared on the paper - something again a journalist looking for a story wouldn't consider. The problem is we have journalists writing about such things with no medical knowledge and no idea how to critically appraise an article. That leads to bullshit stories giving the public wrong ideas about healthcare.

see Martin Robbins' guide to writing sciency editorial... in full here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-l ... 0/sep/24/1

beginning thusly... (just to whet your appetite)

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

[jimbo]

or you could be cynical and imagine that the geneticists are de facto the pharmacists for the drug company that sells ritolin.

Indeed, though again that would have to be declared on the paper - something again a journalist looking for a story wouldn't consider. The problem is we have journalists writing about such things with no medical knowledge and no idea how to critically appraise an article. That leads to bullshit stories giving the public wrong ideas about healthcare.

see Martin Robbins' guide to writing sciency editorial... in full here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-l ... 0/sep/24/1

beginning thusly... (just to whet your appetite)

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

Haha! Very good. I did quite a lot of work last year on this but never came across that article. Brilliant.

[thebish]

Not angry, but there aint a 'what a sad set of bastards' thread

Twitter users

I can see why folk may be remotely interested in what a 'personality' is up to, but Si from Halliwells going to Maccies?

WTF

Similarly status updates on Facebook

If you're not into twitter - how would you know that Si from Halliwell (whoever he is) is going to Maccies? surely you only get that if you're somehow involved in twittering?

[Dujon]

Thanks for the Guardian link, the bish. Robbins' article is a wonderful digest of my thoughts on 'scientific journalism' in the daily media and should have, if they had the sense to read it, made cringe many a scribe and his/her editors.

Reverting to shorts, socks, sandals and flip-flops ('thongs' to us lot down here):

There is nothing wrong in wearing shorts. Many tradesmen in this country wear them year round for practical reasons. Most 'tradies' also wear long socks, usually of the footy variety, in conjunction with safety boots. Thongs should never be worn over (if that's the right word) socks. There are two reasons for that - it's impractical as the socks will wear rather quickly plus it negates the reason for which the thongs are worn. The well dressed man, when choosing to wear shorts, should also consider footwear. Firstly, never thongs. Semi-casual shoes are best but, in a business climate, normal formal wear is to be expected. Socks should always (sorry, Monty) be calf length, conservative and (most definitely) not football paraphernalia . Thongs should never be worn whilst driving a motor vehicle. So endeth the lesson de Dujon.

[General Mannerheim]

Not angry, but there aint a 'what a sad set of bastards' thread

Twitter users

I can see why folk may be remotely interested in what a 'personality' is up to, but Si from Halliwells going to Maccies?

WTF

Similarly status updates on Facebook

Its a funny argument, i have no problem with either side. whilst i agree anyone who is interested to hear Si from Halliwells going to Maccies is a fool, but you don’t have to follow nobbers tbf..

I have an account, i have no followers and never tweet but i do like to occasionally have a read through what my carefully selected group are saying – because the people ive chosen to follow are, IMO fairly credible, interesting or funny. Armando Ianucci’s or Charlie Brookers for example are usually pretty funny. Leigh Frances’ is good, Stu Holdens is always interesting for different reasons, Stephen Fry gets on my nerves a bit actually but i also follow a couple of specialist news feeds that show me stories ive not heard anywhere else. I think its pretty good actually. I cant quite understand why the’tweeters’ do it though? Some are relentless! and i have no interest in following Lady Gaga (who has the most followers world wide apparently) or Peter Andre or whoever.

Facebook status updates are just shit though, when i look at wor lass’s account who has (10 million friends) some of the shit they spout makes me wanna put my foot through the screen! (just had some toast lol x)Again, I have an account, and i do use it – but i do refuse to accept friend requests from people i met once or went to primary school with etc. I have a nice small list of people who i am actually intouch with and like, so their status updates don’t bother me, and most are just telling jokes or taking the piss anyway which is ok in my book.

Cant understand these people who get some kind of ego trip by the amount of facebook friends or Twitter followers they have!?

[ratbert]

I try to be 'funny' with Facebook updates but just get 'what the feck are you on about?' comments (same as on here, I suppose) from friends who like to say they are 'looking forward to the weekend' in their updates all the time.

With Twitter I feel like I've wandered into a showbiz party by accident, standing awkwardly in the corner with a glass of orange juice watching celebs air-kissing one another.

[thebish]

what the feck are you on about?

[Il Pirate]

what the feck are you on about?

Don't worry Bish; you are not alone here. I've no idea about, or interest in this spaceface twatter thingy. If I want to contact a friend I usualy phone 'em. Or, as we are in the 21st century, an e mail from time to time.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks for the Guardian link, the bish. Robbins' article is a wonderful digest of my thoughts on 'scientific journalism' in the daily media and should have, if they had the sense to read it, made cringe many a scribe and his/her editors.

Reverting to shorts, socks, sandals and flip-flops ('thongs' to us lot down here):

There is nothing wrong in wearing shorts. Many tradesmen in this country wear them year round for practical reasons. Most 'tradies' also wear long socks, usually of the footy variety, in conjunction with safety boots. Thongs should never be worn over (if that's the right word) socks. There are two reasons for that - it's impractical as the socks will wear rather quickly plus it negates the reason for which the thongs are worn. The well dressed man, when choosing to wear shorts, should also consider footwear. Firstly, never thongs. Semi-casual shoes are best but, in a business climate, normal formal wear is to be expected. Socks should always (sorry, Monty) be calf length, conservative and (most definitely) not football paraphernalia . Thongs should never be worn whilst driving a motor vehicle. So endeth the lesson de Dujon.

I'm not sure about OZ, Dujon, but over here we wear sandals on our feet. Thongs go somewhere else and I do not like to think of overweight, middle-aged men wearing nothing on top of them.

[jimbo]

Thanks for the Guardian link, the bish. Robbins' article is a wonderful digest of my thoughts on 'scientific journalism' in the daily media and should have, if they had the sense to read it, made cringe many a scribe and his/her editors.

Reverting to shorts, socks, sandals and flip-flops ('thongs' to us lot down here):

There is nothing wrong in wearing shorts. Many tradesmen in this country wear them year round for practical reasons. Most 'tradies' also wear long socks, usually of the footy variety, in conjunction with safety boots. Thongs should never be worn over (if that's the right word) socks. There are two reasons for that - it's impractical as the socks will wear rather quickly plus it negates the reason for which the thongs are worn. The well dressed man, when choosing to wear shorts, should also consider footwear. Firstly, never thongs. Semi-casual shoes are best but, in a business climate, normal formal wear is to be expected. Socks should always (sorry, Monty) be calf length, conservative and (most definitely) not football paraphernalia . Thongs should never be worn whilst driving a motor vehicle. So endeth the lesson de Dujon.

I'm not sure about OZ, Dujon, but over here we wear sandals on our feet. Thongs go somewhere else and I do not like to think of overweight, middle-aged men wearing nothing on top of them.

This reminds me of when I was in clinic in Australia and a fairly attractive girl came in with problems related to her feet and gait. After a couple of questions the doctor looked at her before enquiring in a considering tone whether she often wore thongs. Caught me well off guard did that one!

[General Mannerheim]

what the feck are you on about?

Don't worry Bish; you are not alone here. I've no idea about, or interest in this spaceface twatter thingy. If I want to contact a friend I usualy phone 'em. Or, as we are in the 21st century, an e mail from time to time.

yeah, just for darkies and queers all that shit?

FFS, it really irritates me how some folk can be so close-minded about these things. Social networking is the future, embrace it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

what the feck are you on about?

Don't worry Bish; you are not alone here. I've no idea about, or interest in this spaceface twatter thingy. If I want to contact a friend I usualy phone 'em. Or, as we are in the 21st century, an e mail from time to time.

yeah, just for darkies and queers all that shit?

FFS, it really irritates me how some folk can be so close-minded about these things. Social networking is the future, embrace it.

I do have a facebook account acquired recently. There was a specific work-related purpose for the tasks I'm doing for the next month or so before they put me out to pasture. I also made 'friends' with my children which allowed me to see their pictures and keep up with their activities. On the downside I receive frequent request for people to be my 'friend' - three quarters of these to the best of my knowledge I've never heard of. However, it makes me feel a little guilty that I probably should remember them. I even have a few TW 'friends' because I knew their real name. I joined the TW facebook group which appears to be moribund. While social networking does have positive aspects it can also be a huge waste of time IMHO. Still I have an open mind about it so far.

[Prufrock]

Why is this on Nat's Wiki page?!

"FA Cup controversy

On 3 May 1958, almost five years to the day after losing the 1953 final, Lofthouse captained Bolton in the 1958 FA Cup Final against Manchester United, who three months earlier had been involved in the Munich air disaster. Against a national wave of sympathy for United, Bolton won the game 2–0 with Lofthouse scoring two goals, the second of which was highly controversial and remains a talking point to this day. Lofthouse went into a challenge with the United keeper Harry Gregg and barged him into the net to score as shoulder charging the goalkeeper was a legitimate tactic at the time."

[thebish]

what the feck are you on about?

Don't worry Bish; you are not alone here. I've no idea about, or interest in this spaceface twatter thingy. If I want to contact a friend I usualy phone 'em. Or, as we are in the 21st century, an e mail from time to time.

I think you missed my point... to get it, you'd have had to read the previous post properly...

[thebish]

Why is this on Nat's Wiki page?!

"FA Cup controversy

On 3 May 1958, almost five years to the day after losing the 1953 final, Lofthouse captained Bolton in the 1958 FA Cup Final against Manchester United, who three months earlier had been involved in the Munich air disaster. Against a national wave of sympathy for United, Bolton won the game 2–0 with Lofthouse scoring two goals, the second of which was highly controversial and remains a talking point to this day. Lofthouse went into a challenge with the United keeper Harry Gregg and barged him into the net to score as shoulder charging the goalkeeper was a legitimate tactic at the time."

why don't you go and edit it? I'm told it's perfectly possible to edit wiki pages...

[CAPSLOCK]

Why is this on Nat's Wiki page?!

"FA Cup controversy

On 3 May 1958, almost five years to the day after losing the 1953 final, Lofthouse captained Bolton in the 1958 FA Cup Final against Manchester United, who three months earlier had been involved in the Munich air disaster. Against a national wave of sympathy for United, Bolton won the game 2–0 with Lofthouse scoring two goals, the second of which was highly controversial and remains a talking point to this day. Lofthouse went into a challenge with the United keeper Harry Gregg and barged him into the net to score as shoulder charging the goalkeeper was a legitimate tactic at the time."

It was controversial 'cos it wasn't legitimate

Twas a foul, which makes it all the better

[Montreal Wanderer]

Why is this on Nat's Wiki page?!

"FA Cup controversy

On 3 May 1958, almost five years to the day after losing the 1953 final, Lofthouse captained Bolton in the 1958 FA Cup Final against Manchester United, who three months earlier had been involved in the Munich air disaster. Against a national wave of sympathy for United, Bolton won the game 2–0 with Lofthouse scoring two goals, the second of which was highly controversial and remains a talking point to this day. Lofthouse went into a challenge with the United keeper Harry Gregg and barged him into the net to score as shoulder charging the goalkeeper was a legitimate tactic at the time."

It was controversial 'cos it wasn't legitimate

Twas a foul, which makes it all the better

Yes, but Pru's point was the contradiction between saying it was controversial and saying the tactic was legitimate - if it was legitimate there should be no controversy, if it was a foul it shouldn't be a goal. At least I think that was what he meant - one never knows with kids these days.