@Sketchy: people do slag off the BL cars more than they should do. My Dad brought a Marina brand new in 1978, expecting it to last 5 years. He brought other cars after it, but kept it is a runabout he did not mind parking wherever. Finally died from tin worm with 380,000 miles on the clock in the late 90s . Not bad for possibly the car with the worst reputation from the BL bunch . Maybe he just had one that the work force bothered to actually build correctly, god knows
That said, it did not go around corners in the rain. But I still prefer RWD
Oh and the whole point of the montego is that I dont mind smashing it up
On a side note one day I want to own/restore a Vauxhall Firenza (Droop Snoot)
Originally Posted by Matt Boothman There is something very primeval about sport which can appeal not only to your higher senses, but also to your base instincts, the animal in you. Personally, I believe anyone who does not get in touch with this side of themselves is missing something. Sport is the one thing in my life in which I can truly let my brain go and live off the actions of somebody else.
And towards Adam, who said 'I think you have to lack imagination to like sports', I would point to the following quote from Albert Camus, when asked whether he preferred the theatre or football he said "Football, without hesitation". (He of Nobel Prize winning fame.) Roald Dahl was an excellent squash player and footballer. Plato was a wrestler in the the ancient Olympics. Dalí was into his football. Pope John Paul was a goalkeeper. Did these men all lack imagination?
Other things can be competitive bar sports. Scientists are particularly prone to this: Einstein was not renowned for doing sports, Oppenheimer had a severe dislike for anything physical bar sailing - I am sure there are lots more examples from both sides of the coin. Scientists/Academics are competitive about getting that paper out before Fred from University X does, I am competitive by trying to be the best engineer in my peer group
This is besides the point anyway, there is a very large difference between doing sports and watching them. I fail to see how sitting on the sofa is tapping into some base instincts, where as doing something competitive I can fully comprehend. I beat a guy at an arm wrestle, I feel like an awesome dude ready to take on the world. If I watch sports on the TV I just get bored and put a DVD on...
There's a difference between competitiveness and sport. Chess is competitive. It's not sport. Sport must physical. It's a thing that has to be done with mind and body, like hunting, or sex, it's a thing common with all humanity. And sitting on the sofa can tap into base instincts if you let it. You say you get bored by sports on TV and put a DVD on... aren't DVDs just videos of people doing things, which you watch passively but yet take no part in? I say, if you can get emotional about a film or a piece of music, why not a sport? The difference is, sport has no script.
Anyway, no point arguing about the merits of sport when its been one of the major cornerstones of civilisation for millenia. This is a computer games site. It's fucking games on a computer, you idiots.
LOL, Sports are a cornerstone in society (especially if playing them) I will agree but there is OTHER aspect's to civilisation - something that is lacking on UK TV. Knowledge is just as important if not more, or should we all live in caves again? Can you name me a TV program that is recent on the major 5 channels and is going to inspire engineers or academics?
How does sitting on the sofa improve my fitness, increase my team work skills, sportsmanship or anything like that? Plus watching my local team just makes me facepalm as they are useless . At least watching red dwarf or something makes me laugh...
I would still rather do something than watch something. That is just the way I am. Watch a porno or have some sexy time? I know what I prefer.
There was a programme last night, on BBC, something like The Big Bang Show or somat - just basically a version of Johnny Ball's old shows but with younger presenters. But what has science got to do with anything (you keep bringing it up like it's the be all and end all)? Most of the time, people want to watch telly passively - education usually doesn't scratch that itch, because most people are using their minds either at school or at work in the daytime. But I myself do love an informative programme (I recently just bought three box sets of David Attenborough's stuff), but most people simply don't.
I am personally grateful for the amount of useful information and academic subjects that are on UK TV (mainly BBC). University Challenge, Who Do You Think You Are, them programmes with Dick Strawbridge, Attenborough, Simon Schama's history series, Coast, Scrapheap Challenge etc. Go anywhere else in the world and the situation would be a lot worse.
I keep bringing it up because I am an engineer, and to be quite frank I am quite worried. Firstly the number of students doing technical subjects is dropping year on year to do what is perceived as easier subjects, secondly research institutions are slowly running out of people competent enough to do high level research (they are basically passing away or retiring, I can assure you this IS happening. Even NASA has talked about this problem) and thirdly what is going to happen in say 30 years when there is hardly anyone left to do any research? A technological dark age. Go into any research establishment and look at the people. You will be hard pushed to find someone under 50.
Most of the time University Challenge is focussed on history or art (whenever I have watched it anyway), Dick Strawbridges new scrapheap challenge is awful, focussing on the competition and completely missing the technical aspects and technical mishaps unlike the old one which used to do both, and most of the other programs you have listed are not going to inspire research level academics/engineers.
I know it is probably worse around the world, but I would like to see Britain better than it is
For me there is a very, very big difference between real sports and watching it on TV. I completely hate sports on TV (I hate TV to begin with come to think of it) but I think real sports are very important. Personally I run 3 times a week, have a small fitness corner I use almost daily and practice caving and bujinkan. This because I enjoy it, it keeps my body in shape and because otherwise I get completely depressed and miserable (we have a small serotonin problem in the family). I don't see how watching sports on TV can have anything to do with this.
On the other hand, I envy the people who do get entertained by it.
Basically Hayo it involves attachment with players or with a team, the ability to emotionally transfer yourself from a room with a TV to the field of play. I personally find it impossible to watch a sporting match as a neutral, I always get involved with one of the sides; when they win I feel happy, when they lose I feel sad - either way I always feel something. When some people see a football pitch, they see actions, directions, emotions, history, even art. Some people just see a field with twenty-two men and a ball. Not knocking them, just different kicks for people. Playing is always the zenith of sport, but when that isn't possible, watching others do it can almost be as gratifying.
Bob Marley: "Football is a part of I - when I play, the world wakes up around me".
the ultimate sporting experience for me was the climax to the 2008 F1 season, where Hamilton looked to have lost it until 2 corners from the end, then he won the world championship - contrast of 2 very different emotions and genuinly had my heart racing
There was a good mini-series sort-of-recently, that I think would inspire the next generation of British engineers. It was called "How to build..." and featured the design and construction of nuclear submarines, jet engines, etc. It was obviously meant to showcase the few areas of engineering in which Britain is still a true world leader, and felt almost like propaganda to get young people to take up careers in the field.
The problem is, there aren't actually any engineering jobs (or soon won't be). The British automotive industry is long gone, and just two days ago, BAe cut another 1000 jobs. Plus there's talk of axing one of the two new aircraft carriers, which would mean yet more job cuts...
I think the BBC should buy the rights to "Popular Mechanics for Kids" (especially the old episodes with Elisha Cuthbert). Both entertaining and educational.
I don't think University Challenge is just focused on history and art, in as much as the questions cover a broad range of topics. However, I have noticed that the teams tend to contain fewer scientists than they used to.
And yes, the new Scrapheap Challenge sucks. It seems to be standard policy to take programs, and make them more "family-friendly" - so if something is too complicated/serious for a 10 year old, it won't be broadcast.
The new look CountryFile is a pretty good example. It always used to deliver serious news and information for farmers and rural communities. Now it's just about travel and fluffy animals...
My point about Beckham was in comparing let's say his wages to let's say a top cancer surgeon or consultant. Whom do you think should get paid more? What is the situation in real life?
If top cancer surgeons are getting paid less than top football players, you've got a real problem there From what I see, a lot of average surgeons get paid way more than good sportsmen. There's also the "moral side" of society which doesn't like medical professionals who ask for too much money for saving lives.
On the other hand, top consultants are the people who brought Enron up back when it should have crumbled. Good riddance to them for making the world a worse place for everyone but their employers.
And the way the economy works, jobs where you make a million people slightly happier pay better than jobs that change the lives of 10 people. If you're doing a job that saves millions of lives, you'll get paid a heck lot of money. Just look at the world's top billionaires. Meh, personally, I'd rather work in a comfy technical job, moderately paid for hanging around and chatting for 8 hours a day, rather than being a highly paid football player and run around 8 hours a day.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Footballers get stupidly overpaid here IMO. There is talk the premier leage in the UK is on the brink of collapse (Man U's debt from what I read was astonishing) and most other clubs are in a similar boat. Perhaps if they all go belly up it will go back to normal wages, and normal ticket prices and hopefully some homegrown players will re-emerge.
Here's the thing I don't get: If you're a millionaire footballer, who could get a job playing anywhere in the world, why the hell would you want to live in Manchester? There are plenty of other decent teams that aren't based in a city where it rains most of the year. See, David Beckham's obviously smarter than you think...
I always thought the really smart people are the ones who "work" for a couple years, and then just retire - eg. Glen Coffee decided he didn't really want to play football any more, and retired after just 1 season in the NFL. Amanda Bynes decided she didn't really want to act any more, and retired aged 24.
Advertisement
Post Reply
. Maybe he just had one that the work force bothered to actually build correctly, god knows 
Edited by an Administrator
But unfortunately quite rare, as well.
. At least watching red dwarf or something makes me laugh...
