Psychobollocks

Observer: Students face personality tests for university places
[UK Government] Ministers want universities to adopt methods such as psychometric testing, the psychological questionnaires widely used in City recruitment which explore personality traits and ability to learn, and US-style aptitude tests as fairer ways of assessing teenagers.

And these morons have been put in charge of my country. There's only one thing wrong with psychometric tests: they're complete bollocks. Mind you, I would say that: the last psychometric test I took said I have a scepticism rating of 87.

If you're not with me on this one, do yourself a favour and read the late Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man.

Ruddy hell!

BBC: Duck cull ruffles feathers
The [UK] government is planning a nationwide cull of ruddy ducks to protect another species from extinction.

Forget the ruddy ducks, when are we going to cull some ruddy cats?

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

DNA poem

BBC: 'Secret of Life' Discovery Turns 50
Fifty years ago, on 28 February 1953, Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, UK, and announced something for which he would later share a Nobel Prize. "We have found the secret of life," his collaborator and subsequent fellow Nobel laureate James Watson later quoted him as saying.

When I was at university, one of my archaeology tutors confessed to being completely in awe of 'you scientists'. He explained how he had been at Cambridge in 1953, and often used to hear Crick and Watson talking in the pub about something called DNA. He said he hadn't been able to understand a word they were saying.

In celebration of this very significant anniversary, I should like to take this opportunity to publish a poem I composed in a different public house several years ago. (Fitz reckons he wrote it, but, as usual, he's wrong.)

Deoxyribonucleic acid
Cannot be passed on if your penis is flaccid.

I thank you.

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

Tate doors

The entrance to the Liverpool Tate Gallery has twin revolving doors, one marked IN, the other marked OUT. Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of having revolving doors in the first place?

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

Loonies

One drawback of running a Charles Darwin website is that you occasionally get pestered by religious loonies. Such a problem did it become at one stage that I went so far as to publish a polite note on the site, explaining why I won't be wasting any more of my time crossing swords with them - but still they keep writing. Here's the start of the latest offering, which is nuttier than a tit feeder:

This discovery has been published in the "Turkish Daily News" and in 18 others publications, including "Shekulli", the most important daily of Albania. The authorities are reluctant to its publication, but I hope that your editorial staff will be not afraid of it and that your news agency is independent.

Of the Truth of Paradise and the Flood: Of the End of Christianity

Replace the legend of the flood with the perspective of a Deucalion, a Pyrrha, a Noah that is a fetus and not yet adult, and everything is illuminated: The diluvial waters are the memory in the fetus of the flow of the uterine water which precedes all birth 'I will make disappear all life on earth': The flow of uterine waters from the mother's womb constitutes a cataclysmic change for the fetus: Its entire universe disappears. The fetus has no other choice but to advance. He has to be born or die According to Christian theology, which is to say according to the explanation of the world by the Christians, man was created as an immortal in the beginning. He lost this dignity by a fault of the first man, Adam, against God.

So there you have it.

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

Simply (D)Red(ful)

I've just been watching Parky. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

Mick Hucknall = Talentless, ruby-toothed ginner.

His name also happens to be an anagram of lick lank chum, but let's not go there.

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

Oversight

BBC: Pub industry faces blurred future
Dwindling visits to village locals coupled with a slowing of the High Street pub boom are taking their toll on the pub industry. "Use them or lose them," says the Campaign for Real Ale as it launches National Pubs Week…

Top attractions at a pub:

  • The people
  • Quality Food
  • Friendly staff

<

p>Ahem, and what about the bloody beer?

Published
Filed under: Nonsense

The Subjunctive

Challenge posed in an email from Stense:

…I spent yesterday musing about why I thought 'If I were you' was more grammatically correct than 'If I was you' - answers on a postcard please!

An excellent challenge! So I sent her a post card (printed in very small letters), which went as follows:

Stense,

You asked for answers on a post card for why you (correctly) thought 'If I were you' was more grammatically correct than 'If I was you'. The answer is that you are employing the subjunctive, i.e. you have changed the form of a verb when the content of the clause in which it is contained is being doubted, supposed, feared true, etc., rather than being asserted. It's the word 'if' that's the dead give-away... You are raising the hypothetical supposition that you could be me and choose to act differently to me. English isn't the only language that has a subjunctive (s/t)ense (ouch!). I learnt all about the subjunctive in my Latin lessons, and it's a very useful weapon to have in your arsenal. If we didn't have the subjunctive, how would we be able to tell whether 'if I was you' meant 'supposing I was in your position' or meant 'if I used to be you'? (Although, if you'll forgive a somewhat pedantic aside, the latter doesn't make much sense in a world where people do not swap personalities. Indeed, the fact that we do not swap personalities renders the phrase 'If I were you' completely preposterous - for I shall never be you, and, even if I did miraculously manage to become you (and could somehow resist the overwhelming temptation to take a hot, soapy shower before covering myself in baby oil), I would still do exactly the same as whatever you would do in that situation - because I would actually be you!)

But, having said all that, note how I failed to employ the subjunctive in the phrase 'If we didn't have the subjunctive, how would we be able to tell...' above. By rights, I should really have said 'how should we' and not 'how would we', for I was exploring the hypothetical situation in which the subjunctive did not exist. You see how tricky the subjunctive can get? Indeed, so tricky is it that I'm not entirely sure that it shouldn't have been 'how would we' all along.

Unfortunately for those like me who had the benefit of a classical education, and who tend to appreciate this sort of arcane mumbo-jumbo, the use of the subjunctive has gone into a steep decline in recent years - or, to put it another way (look out, Stense, here comes the pun:) the world seems to be suffering from a severe bout of subjunctivitis.

I hope that answers your question - although perhaps it would be simpler for me to email a reply next time.