Edinburgh v Newcastle. One of the contestants presses his buzzer to answer the question:
Voiceover: Newcastle, Browne.
…And of Browne's team-mates was called (H)ale!
🦆
Edinburgh v Newcastle. One of the contestants presses his buzzer to answer the question:
Voiceover: Newcastle, Browne.
…And of Browne's team-mates was called (H)ale!
Q: Why didn't the cowardly dragon observe the sabbath?
A: Because it only preyed on weak knights.
Encore une fois… I believe that makes it five out of five.
We return from the commercial break to see Morse standing at the back of a lip-reading class. The teacher moves her lips silently several times, writing on the blackboard as she does so.
ITV1 Continuity Announcer: "We're sorry for the loss of sound and will restore it to you as soon as possible."
I can see the headlines now: "His Royal High-ness", "Weed Are Not Amused", "Land of Dope and Glory", "Third In Line to the Stone", "High-grove".
Far more amusing than it should be, it's: The Prime Number Shitting Bear
Daniel seeks bubbing actors to complete cast
Also (Births, Marriages and Deaths):
STRONGITHARM
Peacefully, on December 25th, 2001, Garry Strongitharm…
Only in Yorkshire.
Buying a pullover in Gap:
"Is it for you, or is it a gift?"
Bless her for pretending she thought I might fit into a medium!
Oh, good grief! BT Cellnet has sponsored a colony of tame social scientists to prove to us scientifically that it's good to gossip on mobile phones.
In fact, they've done no such thing. What BT Cellnet have really done is give the Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) a bit of money, so that SIRC can give BT Cellnet a bit of harmless, human-interest science publicity masquarading as scientific research. The plan seems to have worked: the BBC wrote about it, and now I am.
The research in question has been published in the SIRC report Evolution, Alienation and Gossip—the role of mobile telecommunications in the 21st century by Kate Fox. Here are some edited highlights:
Go on, call me a killjoy, I dare you! Yes, I know it's only supposed to be a bit of harmless fun (I suspect even the social scientists who carried out the research were able to work that one out), but isn't it also incredibly dangerous? Just think about it:
To give SIRC some credit(!), at least they didn't try to explain mobile phones' popularity by their usefulness for replicating memes… But perhaps BT Cellnet wouldn't have liked that: it does sound a bit negative.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I understand from the Today programme website that you are responsible for editorial control of their "Thought for the Day" feature.
This morning's feature ended with the speaker warning us against surrendering to scepticism". As a devout sceptic, I find this comment deeply offensive. I know that scepticism (the refusal to believe in something without supporting evidence) is anathema to religious believers, who hold faith (believing despite the lack of supporting evidence) as their greatest virtue, but I don't see why they should get airtime to criticise my philosophical framework when sceptics evidently aren't allowed to use the same forum to question religious faith.
Bearing in mind that scepticism is the one philosophical framework that holds thought as its greatest virtue, isn't it about time you renamed your feature "Dogma for the Day"?
Regards,