Page 5 of 5

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:34 am
by Safe_Timber_Man
Christ....that made for painful reading.

'I don't personally know who he is, so you can't use that reference'.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:36 am
by Malcolm Armsteen
Andy McDandy wrote:You know those people we mock for going 'Who?' or 'Never heard of them' in the comments on obit pieces in the Mail, particularly when the person in question isn't a PLU?

Getting a bit close to that here.

Not at all, and I do actually resent that cheap shot. A bit nasty there, Andy.

Don't assume that if you watch low-rent TV and chortle everybody else does.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:09 am
by Andy McDandy
Don't assume that I watch low rent TV for that matter.

While it's nice for people to explain more obscure cultural (or indeed pop-cultural) references, as you said, it's not always done. Then I at least prefer to investigate rather than write off along the lines of 'I've never heard of it so it can't be much cop'.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:43 am
by Malcolm Armsteen
Read what I wrote.

I looked up the fictional character in question, and then made the point that it is hardly advancing the debate to quote characters who:

a) many have never heard of, so the 'cultural reference' is highly questionable, and
b) is a fictional character, so his inclusion in the debate of an example of reality is a bit of a stretch.

We could all include some obscure reference to areas of our own interest, experience or expertise if we wished to do so. We don't because it is sloppy thinking, and makes one look like a pretentious knob.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:21 pm
by youngian
Yes that needed clarifying; this was a comment in the Mail to the Booker story from Mr John Preston of Stoke on Trent and not Count Arthur Strong. Who, as research discovered is indeed not a real person but a befuddled comedy character.
John Preston, Stoke on Trent, about 21 hours ago
I am 68 and every time I hear something measured in metric I have to do some mental arithmetic to convert it to imperial so that I know what the hell they are talking about. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... orked.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Also comments attributed to Alan Partridge, Alf Garnett and Victor Meldrew are not really from them because they aren't real either.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:46 pm
by Watchman
From now on i will only be quoting Schrodinger............so everyone back in the fecking box!

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:23 pm
by Daley Mayle
A few years back The Hitch penned a similar column but in his case it was about temperatures. He reckoned that measuring in Fahrenheit was inherently more accurate because the numbers were bigger. Confused? You will be. He cited the example of a child running a temperature where the norm should be 98.6º Fahrenheit and the kid is now 100.6ºF. This increase should set alarm bells a-ringing yet in Celsius, with the norm being 37ºC, it would only be increased by 1.1ºC.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:29 pm
by Andy McDandy
I also remember him saying that Imperial was better because of its complexity, as it forced you into permanent mental arithmetic mode, as opposed to simply adding or removing zeroes. In a way the usual 'it was tough for me so I don't see why it should be easy for anyone else' reaction.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:38 pm
by Bones McCoy
Andy McDandy wrote:I also remember him saying that Imperial was better because of its complexity, as it forced you into permanent mental arithmetic mode, as opposed to simply adding or removing zeroes. In a way the usual 'it was tough for me so I don't see why it should be easy for anyone else' reaction.
An example of why "Imperial" is an apt name.

All that long division (for example to find a trajectory to bring the cannon to bear) is good for the soul when you're shooting up the sultan's residence.
Fast forward a few years and the Bosche gunners have your range, there's a lot less time to fuck about with carried remainders.

Re: Christopher Booker

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:05 am
by youngian
Unlike 10 you can divide 12 by 3 and 4. If two extra numbers were invented you could have a metric system in base 12 than everyone would be happy.