Thursday, November 14, 2002
"Following the crushing defeat of Pakistan and England in the first Test, the International Cricket Council has imposed a new set of rules for the remainder of the Ashes series to make the contest more even.
1) England has been granted an automatic wickie, freeing up wicket keeper Alex Stewart to defend the boundary. Under the rule, Australian batsmen will be deemed out "caught behind" if the ball nicks their bat and lands in the immediate area behind the wicket. The rule is a compromise from the original English proposal which had pushed for automatic slips as well. The ICC refused that request on the grounds that "someone has to go and get the ball when an Australian misses it."
2) In addition, Australia is under strict "tip and run" restrictions which require they take a run off every ball they hit. Steve Waugh was happy to accept this, as it meant no change to his current game plan. As a compromise, it was agreed that the Australians will also have to shout out the word "wickets" when completing a run to make run out decisions by umpires easier.
3) Following his outstanding performances, Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist has "six and out" restrictions imposed on him. As a compromise, he cannot get out under this rule from the first ball faced. As well, following complaints from opposing fielders, Gilchrist will have to retrieve the ball if it goes across the road.
4) Instead of using a bat, Matt Hayden will now be obliged to use a stump with bat cam for endless action replays for tv viewers.
5) New rules for England include "one hand, one bounce" while they are fielding, and the provision of "last man carries" when they are batting. Australian captain Steve Waugh has vigorously opposed the "last man carries" rule and has launched an appeal. Waugh says Australia will only agree to the rule if there are electric wickets at the end, allowing Aussie fielders to throw to the stumps at either end.
6) The English have proposed to extend the "can't get out first ball" provision to "can't get out within the first ten overs", but the ICC proclaimed that the extra runs gained would hardly be worth the effort.
7) A spokesperson for the ICC also announced that following six successive ducks "from now on Craig White can't get out for a duck".
8) English pace bowler Andy Caddick will also be allowed to wrap the ball's seam with electrical tape when he's bowling in the second innings.
9) The spokesperson added there will be "no LB" for English batsmen unless "it is really, really obvious."
10) Shane Warne has conceded that its "fair enough" that he has to bowl underarm (but not molly grubbers) to the English tail end.
11) If England decides that Steven Harmison is to be given an over, the umpire will deem the Australian batsmen as dismissed if Harmison lands the ball anywhere on the pitch. Captain Steve Waugh has no problems with this change, as the probability of such a dismissal occurring is infinitesimally small.
Despite the changes, Australia remains firm favourites to retain the Ashes, paying 22 cents for the series win while the English Ashes win is currently paying 1.2 million dollars."
1) England has been granted an automatic wickie, freeing up wicket keeper Alex Stewart to defend the boundary. Under the rule, Australian batsmen will be deemed out "caught behind" if the ball nicks their bat and lands in the immediate area behind the wicket. The rule is a compromise from the original English proposal which had pushed for automatic slips as well. The ICC refused that request on the grounds that "someone has to go and get the ball when an Australian misses it."
2) In addition, Australia is under strict "tip and run" restrictions which require they take a run off every ball they hit. Steve Waugh was happy to accept this, as it meant no change to his current game plan. As a compromise, it was agreed that the Australians will also have to shout out the word "wickets" when completing a run to make run out decisions by umpires easier.
3) Following his outstanding performances, Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist has "six and out" restrictions imposed on him. As a compromise, he cannot get out under this rule from the first ball faced. As well, following complaints from opposing fielders, Gilchrist will have to retrieve the ball if it goes across the road.
4) Instead of using a bat, Matt Hayden will now be obliged to use a stump with bat cam for endless action replays for tv viewers.
5) New rules for England include "one hand, one bounce" while they are fielding, and the provision of "last man carries" when they are batting. Australian captain Steve Waugh has vigorously opposed the "last man carries" rule and has launched an appeal. Waugh says Australia will only agree to the rule if there are electric wickets at the end, allowing Aussie fielders to throw to the stumps at either end.
6) The English have proposed to extend the "can't get out first ball" provision to "can't get out within the first ten overs", but the ICC proclaimed that the extra runs gained would hardly be worth the effort.
7) A spokesperson for the ICC also announced that following six successive ducks "from now on Craig White can't get out for a duck".
8) English pace bowler Andy Caddick will also be allowed to wrap the ball's seam with electrical tape when he's bowling in the second innings.
9) The spokesperson added there will be "no LB" for English batsmen unless "it is really, really obvious."
10) Shane Warne has conceded that its "fair enough" that he has to bowl underarm (but not molly grubbers) to the English tail end.
11) If England decides that Steven Harmison is to be given an over, the umpire will deem the Australian batsmen as dismissed if Harmison lands the ball anywhere on the pitch. Captain Steve Waugh has no problems with this change, as the probability of such a dismissal occurring is infinitesimally small.
Despite the changes, Australia remains firm favourites to retain the Ashes, paying 22 cents for the series win while the English Ashes win is currently paying 1.2 million dollars."
For those who want a prime example of how to catch a troll (or a fool) out, this message on Planet Rugby relating a "trap" set for one is a delight. "Waratah" is a regular poster - the other identities are all pretty obvious...
For those who want a prime example of how to catch a troll (or a fool) out, this message on Planet Rugby relating a "trap" set for one is a delight. "Waratah" is a regular poster - the other identities are all pretty obvious...
Daimnation! points out this gem:
"From a Bahrain Gulf News article about David Duke, who has been invited to address the "Discover Islam Centre" on 'Global Struggle against Zionism' and 'Israeli Involvement in September 11':
[Discover Islam Centre head Mohammed Zuhair] said Duke was not being invited because of his perceived anti-Jewish stand but because he has recently authored a book that 'exposes the Zionist agenda for world domination."
Glad he cleared that up."
"From a Bahrain Gulf News article about David Duke, who has been invited to address the "Discover Islam Centre" on 'Global Struggle against Zionism' and 'Israeli Involvement in September 11':
[Discover Islam Centre head Mohammed Zuhair] said Duke was not being invited because of his perceived anti-Jewish stand but because he has recently authored a book that 'exposes the Zionist agenda for world domination."
Glad he cleared that up."
S t e v e n C h a p m a n has spotted a delightful trick: Paul Foot, legendary leftie, is now accusing his own father of being "rightwing". How else could his father's position be explained? Go read it now (and notice how his father's stance, in drafting the very UN resolution Paul is trying to interpret, indicates that his interpretation must be a-textual)...
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
The Times Online has spotted an opportunity to potential get rid of some European legislation:
"The quantities in which humdrum beverages such as water or wine are sold is not just a marketing convention or a result of the subtle action of consumer preference. It is, sometimes, a matter of EU law and the Commission is beginning to wonder whether that is sensible.
A working paper (there is always a working paper) concluded: “The EU seems over-regulated compared to the rest of the world” and “The fixing of sizes by legislators enables manufacturers to limit consumer choice”. The Commissioner for Enterprise, Erkki Liikanen, has given everyone a chance to air their views at http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/*.
If the survey finds against rules on pack sizes, the Commission will repeal the directives and abolish the rules."
Next stop, CAP et al. After you to vote...
* link is correct - the printed address is a touch vague
"The quantities in which humdrum beverages such as water or wine are sold is not just a marketing convention or a result of the subtle action of consumer preference. It is, sometimes, a matter of EU law and the Commission is beginning to wonder whether that is sensible.
A working paper (there is always a working paper) concluded: “The EU seems over-regulated compared to the rest of the world” and “The fixing of sizes by legislators enables manufacturers to limit consumer choice”. The Commissioner for Enterprise, Erkki Liikanen, has given everyone a chance to air their views at http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/*.
If the survey finds against rules on pack sizes, the Commission will repeal the directives and abolish the rules."
Next stop, CAP et al. After you to vote...
* link is correct - the printed address is a touch vague
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
The Times Online appears to have cut a classic line from an article about the recent Arab League meeting.
They've left in the opening paragraph:
"ARAB nations last night demanded that their own inspectors be included in any United Nations team sent to find President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction."
However, this has been cut:
"After the meeting, Iraq's Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, protested at the alleged paucity of Arab inspectors when there were "hundreds" of Arab experts from all countries who were experienced in the field."
How do you become a UN weapons inspector?
Well, Slate say: "An extensive background in chemical engineering, missile design, or bacteriology is a good start. Inspectors are expected to recognize the telltale signs of covert weapons production, such as machine tools that have multiple uses or trace elements of lethal chemicals."
If the Iraqi foreign minister did say that, don't you think that hundreds of experts from around the region is something to worry about? Talk about burying the story....
They've left in the opening paragraph:
"ARAB nations last night demanded that their own inspectors be included in any United Nations team sent to find President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction."
However, this has been cut:
"After the meeting, Iraq's Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, protested at the alleged paucity of Arab inspectors when there were "hundreds" of Arab experts from all countries who were experienced in the field."
How do you become a UN weapons inspector?
Well, Slate say: "An extensive background in chemical engineering, missile design, or bacteriology is a good start. Inspectors are expected to recognize the telltale signs of covert weapons production, such as machine tools that have multiple uses or trace elements of lethal chemicals."
If the Iraqi foreign minister did say that, don't you think that hundreds of experts from around the region is something to worry about? Talk about burying the story....
Monday, November 11, 2002
I have a feeling that a sub-editor at the Times is kicking himself about letting this sentence ("paragraph" on the page) into print. It may accurately describe events, but it certainly looks ambiguous...
"To fanatics such as Mohammed, the Pope is as great an enemy and obstacle to their vision of a global jihad as the US President."
"To fanatics such as Mohammed, the Pope is as great an enemy and obstacle to their vision of a global jihad as the US President."
Sunday, November 10, 2002
Matthew Parris has managed to churn out a truely dreadful article about Gibraltar for the Times. There is a nugget of sense in it, but the general direction is thoughtless and profoundly illiberal.
" I doubt we are ready to get out of Gibraltar yet, and there are arguments for hanging on. But the worst of these is self-determination.
A kind of heresy has been growing in recent decades, mouthed by a certain sort of Conservative yet profoundly at odds with the whole structure of Tory philosophy on sovereignty and foreign policy. Iain Duncan Smith, understandably in search of a reliable cheer from the troops behind him at Prime Minister’s Questions this Wednesday, seemed to subscribe to it as he asked repeatedly about the referendum to be held by Gibraltarians the next day. The heresy found offensive expression in posters brandished by those rallying there before the vote. These posters read “Gibraltar is not Britain’s to give”.
Others read “Gibraltar is British”. Both posters were held aloft by people wearing Union Jack T-shirts. The poster-bearers seemed to think they were on the same side when logically they should have been in pitched battle. The Rock cannot be British yet not Britain’s to give. What is Britain’s to hold is Britain’s to relinquish, if we choose.
...[E]ven when its implications are uncomfortable for some Tories, [the principle] is ancient and rooted in sovereignty. It is the principle that no group — be they a foreign power or a community of our own compatriots — can usurp the British Crown’s right, exercised through ministers in Parliament, to do as we elect with any part of our territory.
That includes selling it, sharing it, bartering it, leasing it, letting it, lending it or giving it away. It is one of the inalienable rights of ownership.
Note what I am not saying. I am not saying we should cede the Falklands, smash socialist town halls, surrender to the IRA or get shot of Gibraltar. Perhaps we should, perhaps we shouldn’t. I am not saying that the accord Britain is now trying to reach with Spain is timely or wise or that its likely terms justify the attempt. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don’t. I say only that the Queen’s ministers in Parliament, not a single community or any version of local democracy, must be the judge.
Nor am I arguing that that it is always wrong, when we are considering divesting ourselves of territory, to seek the opinion of those most directly affected. Government should always inquire about, often take notice of and sometimes accede to local wishes. But it is important to do this from a position of clear and unchallenged authority. We should resist any creeping implication that minorities can veto the national will. We should resist the idea that this sort of militant localism is an extension of democracy. It is the abnegation of democracy.
My case against dignifying localism in this way goes wider than Gibraltar. If John Prescott presses ahead with his plans for regional assemblies it may arise in acute form.
Encouraging communities to become better engaged in their own governance obviously makes sense. But the thoughtless (and growing) modern tendency to gild these arrangements with constitutional arguments about self-determination and democratic mandate is dangerous.
...
The residents of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands cannot bind Britain to defend them. No referendum in Liverpool could bind Whitehall to bail the city out. They can ask, that’s all. We have a way of settling the answers. It’s called a general election, and it’s nationwide."
The "nugget of truth", or at least the reasonable claim, is that a nation isn't compelled to arrange itself on the basis of whether certain people want to remain a part of it. If Mexicans wanted their country to be part of the USA (say), the US would be at liberty to reject them.
However, this is just the flip side of a principle that Parris is denying. People are not chattel to be bartered as their "state" sees fit. They are free to strike out on their own. And that's true of majorities, as well as minorities: if England wanted out of the Union, they'd be as free as Scotland to work towards that, and they shouldn't (couldn't?) be kept in against their will, even if this effectively "chucked out" Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland against their will.
To claim that Britain is at liberty to act solely in our own interests with Gibraltar is to reject the solid basis for decolonialist political platforms. If Britain didn't want India any more, we presumably should have sold it to America, as that would be the "best" deal we could get for it.
We're not forced to keep Gibraltar or the Falklands or Ulster if we don't want to, even if their residents want to stay. But we're not free to give them away: if their people want to make their own way as an independent state, we can't, or at least morally shouldn't, force them into an arranged marriage with a partner they dislike.
A reductio ad adsurdam of Mr Parris's position is that we should sell a Carribean island to drugs barons, as they'd be likely to pay a good price, and the wants and needs of the people living there, though "inquire[d] about [and] take[n] notice of" should be overridden in the "national interest".
I can think of few more morally bankrupt approaches to geopolitics, and am surprised at who I find voicing them.
" I doubt we are ready to get out of Gibraltar yet, and there are arguments for hanging on. But the worst of these is self-determination.
A kind of heresy has been growing in recent decades, mouthed by a certain sort of Conservative yet profoundly at odds with the whole structure of Tory philosophy on sovereignty and foreign policy. Iain Duncan Smith, understandably in search of a reliable cheer from the troops behind him at Prime Minister’s Questions this Wednesday, seemed to subscribe to it as he asked repeatedly about the referendum to be held by Gibraltarians the next day. The heresy found offensive expression in posters brandished by those rallying there before the vote. These posters read “Gibraltar is not Britain’s to give”.
Others read “Gibraltar is British”. Both posters were held aloft by people wearing Union Jack T-shirts. The poster-bearers seemed to think they were on the same side when logically they should have been in pitched battle. The Rock cannot be British yet not Britain’s to give. What is Britain’s to hold is Britain’s to relinquish, if we choose.
...[E]ven when its implications are uncomfortable for some Tories, [the principle] is ancient and rooted in sovereignty. It is the principle that no group — be they a foreign power or a community of our own compatriots — can usurp the British Crown’s right, exercised through ministers in Parliament, to do as we elect with any part of our territory.
That includes selling it, sharing it, bartering it, leasing it, letting it, lending it or giving it away. It is one of the inalienable rights of ownership.
Note what I am not saying. I am not saying we should cede the Falklands, smash socialist town halls, surrender to the IRA or get shot of Gibraltar. Perhaps we should, perhaps we shouldn’t. I am not saying that the accord Britain is now trying to reach with Spain is timely or wise or that its likely terms justify the attempt. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don’t. I say only that the Queen’s ministers in Parliament, not a single community or any version of local democracy, must be the judge.
Nor am I arguing that that it is always wrong, when we are considering divesting ourselves of territory, to seek the opinion of those most directly affected. Government should always inquire about, often take notice of and sometimes accede to local wishes. But it is important to do this from a position of clear and unchallenged authority. We should resist any creeping implication that minorities can veto the national will. We should resist the idea that this sort of militant localism is an extension of democracy. It is the abnegation of democracy.
My case against dignifying localism in this way goes wider than Gibraltar. If John Prescott presses ahead with his plans for regional assemblies it may arise in acute form.
Encouraging communities to become better engaged in their own governance obviously makes sense. But the thoughtless (and growing) modern tendency to gild these arrangements with constitutional arguments about self-determination and democratic mandate is dangerous.
...
The residents of Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands cannot bind Britain to defend them. No referendum in Liverpool could bind Whitehall to bail the city out. They can ask, that’s all. We have a way of settling the answers. It’s called a general election, and it’s nationwide."
The "nugget of truth", or at least the reasonable claim, is that a nation isn't compelled to arrange itself on the basis of whether certain people want to remain a part of it. If Mexicans wanted their country to be part of the USA (say), the US would be at liberty to reject them.
However, this is just the flip side of a principle that Parris is denying. People are not chattel to be bartered as their "state" sees fit. They are free to strike out on their own. And that's true of majorities, as well as minorities: if England wanted out of the Union, they'd be as free as Scotland to work towards that, and they shouldn't (couldn't?) be kept in against their will, even if this effectively "chucked out" Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland against their will.
To claim that Britain is at liberty to act solely in our own interests with Gibraltar is to reject the solid basis for decolonialist political platforms. If Britain didn't want India any more, we presumably should have sold it to America, as that would be the "best" deal we could get for it.
We're not forced to keep Gibraltar or the Falklands or Ulster if we don't want to, even if their residents want to stay. But we're not free to give them away: if their people want to make their own way as an independent state, we can't, or at least morally shouldn't, force them into an arranged marriage with a partner they dislike.
A reductio ad adsurdam of Mr Parris's position is that we should sell a Carribean island to drugs barons, as they'd be likely to pay a good price, and the wants and needs of the people living there, though "inquire[d] about [and] take[n] notice of" should be overridden in the "national interest".
I can think of few more morally bankrupt approaches to geopolitics, and am surprised at who I find voicing them.
I can think of few things more fitting than this proposal. I hope it finds favour:
"But there is another, very different, project in the offing for the Somme, where 420,000 British soldiers perished in a futile five-month engagement. Pascal Truffaut, Professor of Architecture at Lille, has come up with a plan to plant a vast river of poppies, 12 miles long and 100 yards wide, to be grown on either side of the autoroute that runs through what was once the Western Front.
The poppies would begin to bloom around the beginning of July. It was on July 1, 1916, that 13 British divisions attacked the German lines and were mown down by machinegun fire; 19,000 soldiers died in the first day of fighting, the worst losses ever suffered by a British army in a single day.
Cecil Lewis wrote of the Somme and its “clumps of crimson poppies ... undaunted by the desolation, heedless of human fury and stupidity”. How right it would be if the stupid notion of building an airport over the flowers and graves was replaced by a single, massive runway of red poppies, stretching from the horizon back to 1916, and a peculiarly British floral war."
"But there is another, very different, project in the offing for the Somme, where 420,000 British soldiers perished in a futile five-month engagement. Pascal Truffaut, Professor of Architecture at Lille, has come up with a plan to plant a vast river of poppies, 12 miles long and 100 yards wide, to be grown on either side of the autoroute that runs through what was once the Western Front.
The poppies would begin to bloom around the beginning of July. It was on July 1, 1916, that 13 British divisions attacked the German lines and were mown down by machinegun fire; 19,000 soldiers died in the first day of fighting, the worst losses ever suffered by a British army in a single day.
Cecil Lewis wrote of the Somme and its “clumps of crimson poppies ... undaunted by the desolation, heedless of human fury and stupidity”. How right it would be if the stupid notion of building an airport over the flowers and graves was replaced by a single, massive runway of red poppies, stretching from the horizon back to 1916, and a peculiarly British floral war."
Ain't It Cool News has a very nice photo of Treebeard, for those interested in the Two Towers...
Mr Beck's been at it again, and has managed to make himself look worse.
"Few things matter very much...Any student of Philosophy should know that. Most of what they waste their energy on falls in that category - the category of what really doesn't matter to the rest of us. And for those of you who took exception to what I wrote, or miswrote, according to you, it doesn't really matter.
That's what you don't understand and all the fancy degrees or letters ascribed to you and your colleagues don't give you one ounce of common sense.
What appears to have happened is someone doesn't know how to write and that someone isn't me.
One thing I am not is ambiguous or hard to understand or follow. All of my links are clear and concise. Many of my readers fell into the same trap. If two different people were responsible for the two different locations, it certainly wasn't made very clear. My readers, clearly more than the readers you may have, all fell into the same trap. So, is that what you intended all along?
It appears so. Or, it is a convenient way not to take responsibility for what you say, or at least attempt to say. Speaking, or in this case, writing in circles seems to be your thing"
Here's my reply: it pretty comprehensively demonstrates that there was no ambiguity about the link in the context of the post, and that at least some of his readers (and Bud himself, for "printing" the relevant letter) can't cope too well with the global nature of the internet. Doesn't understand links, doesn't understand time-zones: I'd go back to print, but each to their own...
"Bud, thanks for (very partially) setting (some of) the record straight. But frankly, you (and your readers) still look like muppets. It's absurd to suggest that Steven and I deliberately blur the lines of who wrote what.
My post you followed a link from said:
"The Captain of the USS Clueless offers this argument in favour of a claim that no ethical system can be both "complete" and "correct": .....I'm not going to argue against his main claim. But I'd suggest that his argument possibly proves too much."
If that doesn't show that I'm talking about someone else's opinions, then nothing short of a flashing neon sign would.
As for your reader's comment, detailled below, it does suggest that he finds it as hard to deal with the internet as you do. Right now, it's 19:40 here. The reason why that's five or so hours ahead of you is because I'm on a different continent. The USA has several different time-zones: the concept shouldn't be too alien.
"Dear Mr. Beck:
Note the posted time on Philosophical Cowboy's post. 8:18 PM, isn't that at night? Yet, if you check the date stamp on my computer, it is 3:45 PM on the same Friday and I am already reading his post. The last time I looked, it was still daylight.
How do you believe in a guy that can't even tell time? Therefore, don't worry, he wouldn't understand your book either."
Since I can't tell where this letter ended (possibly here), I can't tell whether the suggestion about the spam was yours or a reader. However, all I know is that the e-mail I received, from an address I'd never heard of and I think sent to many people, was the ISBN data on your book, the description, and nothing else. No explanation that this might be worth me looking at from a reader, no tip from a friend. Just spam. If you didn't send it, my apologies for suggesting you're a spammer, but someone who likes your book seems to be.
The dignified thing to do would to have been to make a retraction. The polite thing would not to have engaged in more abuse. But the actual course you've taken is to try to make yourself look more foolish. Congratulations."
"Few things matter very much...Any student of Philosophy should know that. Most of what they waste their energy on falls in that category - the category of what really doesn't matter to the rest of us. And for those of you who took exception to what I wrote, or miswrote, according to you, it doesn't really matter.
That's what you don't understand and all the fancy degrees or letters ascribed to you and your colleagues don't give you one ounce of common sense.
What appears to have happened is someone doesn't know how to write and that someone isn't me.
One thing I am not is ambiguous or hard to understand or follow. All of my links are clear and concise. Many of my readers fell into the same trap. If two different people were responsible for the two different locations, it certainly wasn't made very clear. My readers, clearly more than the readers you may have, all fell into the same trap. So, is that what you intended all along?
It appears so. Or, it is a convenient way not to take responsibility for what you say, or at least attempt to say. Speaking, or in this case, writing in circles seems to be your thing"
Here's my reply: it pretty comprehensively demonstrates that there was no ambiguity about the link in the context of the post, and that at least some of his readers (and Bud himself, for "printing" the relevant letter) can't cope too well with the global nature of the internet. Doesn't understand links, doesn't understand time-zones: I'd go back to print, but each to their own...
"Bud, thanks for (very partially) setting (some of) the record straight. But frankly, you (and your readers) still look like muppets. It's absurd to suggest that Steven and I deliberately blur the lines of who wrote what.
My post you followed a link from said:
"The Captain of the USS Clueless offers this argument in favour of a claim that no ethical system can be both "complete" and "correct": .....I'm not going to argue against his main claim. But I'd suggest that his argument possibly proves too much."
If that doesn't show that I'm talking about someone else's opinions, then nothing short of a flashing neon sign would.
As for your reader's comment, detailled below, it does suggest that he finds it as hard to deal with the internet as you do. Right now, it's 19:40 here. The reason why that's five or so hours ahead of you is because I'm on a different continent. The USA has several different time-zones: the concept shouldn't be too alien.
"Dear Mr. Beck:
Note the posted time on Philosophical Cowboy's post. 8:18 PM, isn't that at night? Yet, if you check the date stamp on my computer, it is 3:45 PM on the same Friday and I am already reading his post. The last time I looked, it was still daylight.
How do you believe in a guy that can't even tell time? Therefore, don't worry, he wouldn't understand your book either."
Since I can't tell where this letter ended (possibly here), I can't tell whether the suggestion about the spam was yours or a reader. However, all I know is that the e-mail I received, from an address I'd never heard of and I think sent to many people, was the ISBN data on your book, the description, and nothing else. No explanation that this might be worth me looking at from a reader, no tip from a friend. Just spam. If you didn't send it, my apologies for suggesting you're a spammer, but someone who likes your book seems to be.
The dignified thing to do would to have been to make a retraction. The polite thing would not to have engaged in more abuse. But the actual course you've taken is to try to make yourself look more foolish. Congratulations."
Some more suggestions for Anglospherians.
Russell Leslie offers these Aussies:
"G'Day
Some possible (non-sporting) Australian greats for you.
Sir Robert Menzies (pronounced Mingies) - leader during WWII and longest serving PM
Howard Florey - developed penicilin for clinical use
Herbert Cole "Nugget" Coombs - a key public service "mandarin" during the pre- and post-war period
Herbert Vere "Doc" Evatt - leader of the Labor Party - rival to Menzies, key figure in the founding of the UN and President of the UN General Assembly (1948)
Ned Kelly - Australia's armoured version of Jessie James (though he did want to create an Irish Republic in Australia)"
Jeffrey Pikul offers a number of stalwart names:
"Hello.
I would like to make some suggestions for your list of "Anglospherians".
Medicine:
Frederick Banting Link A, Link B
Banting was the discoverer of Insulin; won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Technology: (Joint UK/Canada/US venture)
Alexander Graham Bell
The first one to reach the patent office with the blueprints for the telephone.
Politics:
Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Near-mythical figure in the Canadian political pantheon.
Culture:
Herbert Marshall McLuhan
"The Medium is the {Message|Mess Age|Massage|Mass Age}""
Thanks guys - very interesting suggestions.
Russell Leslie offers these Aussies:
"G'Day
Some possible (non-sporting) Australian greats for you.
Sir Robert Menzies (pronounced Mingies) - leader during WWII and longest serving PM
Howard Florey - developed penicilin for clinical use
Herbert Cole "Nugget" Coombs - a key public service "mandarin" during the pre- and post-war period
Herbert Vere "Doc" Evatt - leader of the Labor Party - rival to Menzies, key figure in the founding of the UN and President of the UN General Assembly (1948)
Ned Kelly - Australia's armoured version of Jessie James (though he did want to create an Irish Republic in Australia)"
Jeffrey Pikul offers a number of stalwart names:
"Hello.
I would like to make some suggestions for your list of "Anglospherians".
Medicine:
Frederick Banting Link A, Link B
Banting was the discoverer of Insulin; won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Technology: (Joint UK/Canada/US venture)
Alexander Graham Bell
The first one to reach the patent office with the blueprints for the telephone.
Politics:
Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Near-mythical figure in the Canadian political pantheon.
Culture:
Herbert Marshall McLuhan
"The Medium is the {Message|Mess Age|Massage|Mass Age}""
Thanks guys - very interesting suggestions.
