« Previous | Main | Next »

I've

Eddie Mair | 12:25 UK time, Wednesday, 4 October 2006

been staring at this blank page for quite a while now...reflecting on an early promise I made to myself, about not blogging if I've nothing to say. I appreciate that the record shows I've failed, but at least none of the previous rubbish was forced. So, I'll maintain a dignified silence until I think of something I want to say.

Postcards - and there are a LOT more of them - will follow tomorrow.

Comments

  1. At 12:37 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Don't worry Eddie, I don't hold with this keeping-quiet-until-one-has-something-worthwhile-to-say lark. I take after my grandmother - if there's a gap I have to fill it.

    I think I have just illustrated my point.

  2. At 12:40 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Ontheledge wrote:

    Eddie - Can I suggest you start a blog about the issue you raised in your newsletter yesterday? I.e. the issue which seems to be taxing politicos and aging generals about our servicemen's medical facilities? I've felt really upset that it has been insinuated by many that, somehow, servicemen are being hard done by in being treated in NHS hospitals, with elderly patients, etc.
    It interests me that this story comes hot on the heels of the recent tribunal story of the padre in the Navy who was so deeply offended by the hardcore porn used by the servicemen he worked alongside.
    A debate worth opening?

  3. At 12:47 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    It's never stopped any of us from commenting here, even if the original blog is "less than substantial". So, don't be concerned by silly rules. "Blog and be damned" I say!!

  4. At 12:52 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Yes, and perhaps the ‘geriatric’ patients don’t want to be stuck with service personnel, either?


    I also have a discussion topic:
    There has been a lot of talk about reducing taxis. I’m all for this, but at the same time there needs to be a serious increase in buses. Who’s with me? I hope I haven’t misunderstood.

    Dr H Z Hackenbush, Esq

  5. At 12:56 PM on 04 Oct 2006, big sister wrote:

    An early lunch for Eddie, then!

  6. At 12:59 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    This page left intentionally blank

  7. At 01:06 PM on 04 Oct 2006, liz wrote:

    Mmmm, image of Lord Mair as a dignified Buddah .........

  8. At 01:09 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    I know - goodness me, if PM's (EM's?) froggers applied that logic, how bare would these pages be?

    Oo, er, missus (re 1).

    Don't really want to get drawn into a serious debate about which I'm not really qualified to comment. But I'm not quite sure I see the link that ontheledge is trying to draw. Generally, it also struck me as odd that treatment on the NHS was deemed such a bad thing but I did find the argument that being "among their own" was a good place to be for recovering servicement quite persuasive. Whilst I don't know the story about the Naval padre, my initial thought is that perhaps it was the wrong job for him? Padres are usually a pretty special breed.

  9. At 01:14 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Karen Weynberg wrote:

    Totally unrelated but hope it fills the blog ether...'Muttnik the first dog in space' was brilliant by the way! Niki McCretton gave a top notch and highly energetic performance and kids and adults alike had an out of this world time! Cor, I could be a reviewer on 'Front Row' with one liners like that.....

  10. At 01:14 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Carl Goss wrote:

    Well Eddie... if you're not going to say anything.. neither am I........ oh go on then... now you have to do all these extracurricular activities, do you get paid more? How do you find time? And how can we be sure it's you doing it all anyway? This could all be coming from a Delhi Blog centre.
    In fact, you're probably a 16 year old girl on work experience...

  11. At 01:50 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Eva Sye wrote:

    Hello Eddie,

    Some of us have been busy. I've had to phone the help desk this morning. The man there was very helpful.

    Q: My Etch-A-Sketch has all these funny little lines over the screen.
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: How do I turn my Etch-A-Sketch off?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: What's the shortcut for Undo?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: How do I create a New Document window?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: How do I set the background and foreground to be the same colour?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: What's the proper procedure for re-booting my Etch-A-Sketch?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: How do I delete a document?
    A: Pick it up and shake it.

    Q: How do I save my Etch-A-Sketch document?
    A: Don't shake it.

  12. At 01:53 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Dusty wrote:

    Is this it then?

  13. At 01:54 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    You're getting far too free with your "oo-er"s John H.

    But it did make me laugh.

  14. At 01:54 PM on 04 Oct 2006, coco wrote:

    Maybe there's something in Rupert's forward planning file you can talk about.

    Or perhaps you can tell us what everyone in the PM corner is wearing today.

  15. At 01:57 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    What do you when you write, “Northern Ireland will figure in tonight’s programme”? Specifically, the word ‘figure’. Who has the best figure in Northern Ireland, or are we talking numbers?

    Dr H Z Hackenbush, Esq

    I thank you.

  16. At 02:00 PM on 04 Oct 2006, tobias wrote:

    I would very much like a Boris Johnson mug. He seems almost anti-conservative in his approach to everything, political.

    What was it he said yesterday? "Let them eat cake.." or something similar when referring to the sterling job Jamie of the fat tongue is doing in our schools.

    Seriously though, anyone got a Boris mug I can procure?

  17. At 02:01 PM on 04 Oct 2006, ontheledge wrote:

    John H - My point possibly did seem obscure but this (at the risk of adding a very sober note to a normally frivolous blog) is what I was driving at:
    An interviewee from the Tory Conf. seemed to be appalled that 'our boys' would be banged up in a ward with geriatrics - the inference being that 'geriatrics' would somehow be inferior company for 'our boys'. This, I thought, was very offensive, especially as many of our senior citizens had to endure the Blitz and other horrors during WW2. To me, the use of hardcore porn is offensive, so if I found myself hospitalised, I would prefer to be in a ward with elderly patients than with young men who may have tastes I personally find deeply offensive .....
    Incidentally, I'm not a pensioner myself, just somebody who feels strongly about the way we regard older people in our community.

    Sorry to my fellow bloggers - I'm not usually this earnest!

  18. At 02:29 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Great.

  19. At 02:29 PM on 04 Oct 2006, ian wrote:

    So according to the tories, soldiers shouldn't have to pay income tax, and should be treated in private medical facilities. Sounds like a reprise of the traditional tory policy of an NHS opt out.

  20. At 02:29 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    You have nothing to say, yet you have deliberately provoked a flood of c. 2000 postcards addressed to you. Have you not read them? Did nothing there speak to your heart? What kind of man are you? It's enough to make one's blood boil (etc more in this vein...) There must have been SOMETHING funny there to share with us. Even if it was just what the post department said to you as they heaved yet another sack of postcards over the office threshold.

  21. At 02:31 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    SB17

    (16) I think I got your (2) with my (4).


    Now, see if you can work out what I mean when I mean to write the word mean but miss it out (15)...

  22. At 02:32 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Rachel wrote:

    ontheledge: I will take up your challenge and make a non-frivolous blog comment for the first time ever.

    I found the Tory bloke yesterday rather curious too. I wasn't wound up about his geriatrics comment specifically, but thought it odd that it was considered a problem for servicemen and women to be treated in NHS hospitals.

    There is some merit to the argument that they should be prioritised for treatment, but I can't accept the argument that we should reopen military hospitals. This would be hugely inefficient and many service personnel would need the expertise and facilities that only the resources of the NHS can provide.

    Equally, it is a bit daft to propose a dedicated military ward in some hospital or other, since most recovering personnel would want to be treated near to home, wouldn't they?

  23. At 02:44 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Stephen, Leader of STROP wrote:

    Dr Hackenbush, and all pedants,

    At the risk of opening a can of wormic pedantry (I know there is no such word as wormic, but I like it all the same), isn't the suffix "Esq." reserved for Gentry who have no other title (i.e. more than a gentleman, but not much). On that basis, it should not be used in conjunction with the prefix "Dr"

    Answers on a postcard please, prize to be the next book Eddie signs

  24. At 02:57 PM on 04 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    re: Norther Ireland and the IMC.
    Just read this from the news.bbc.co.uk site:

    "That doesn't mean that criminal activity by all members has stopped but the leadership has made public statements and internal directions, investigated incidents of breach of the policy, even expelled some members and has emphasised the importance of ensuring that business affairs are conducted in a legitimate way," - Lord Alderdice.

    um, I'd love tonight's programme to tell us what "business affairs" can be conducted "in a more legitimate way" by an illegal organisation...

    just a thought...

  25. At 03:05 PM on 04 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    tobias - do you really want a "Boris Johnson mug"??

    I mean, I dunno what you look like, and I don't want to be (too) rude to Boris, but is that really a trade up for you?

  26. At 03:09 PM on 04 Oct 2006, ontheledge wrote:

    Rachel - I totally agree with you. It makes no sense to me for already scarce and costly resources to be 'split' between military and non-military patients. I also see the sense, in many cases, of affording priority to servicemen, where feasible, in order to return them to duty as soon as possible (though, no doubt, there would be some servicemen who might prefer to have more time to recuperate). I don't mean that to sound offensive or sarcastic - I'm of the pacifist persuasion, as well as having grave reservations about most of our present military operations, but, heyho!, that's the luxury of free speech!
    What I didn't like was the inference that 'our boys' deserve to be treated as special cases, or that NHS patients are in some way inferior - and I particularly didn't like that reference to geriatric patients who, I well know, can be trying in many ways, but who deserve to be accorded more respect than 'Tory Boy's' comments implied.
    While I feel a whole lot better for saying all this, I appreciate that my other bloggers would probably prefer to stick to more entertaining topics - So I'll keep my head down for a while!

  27. At 03:12 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    This blog is one of the most interesting to date - and all because Eddie had nothing to say!

    But - If we're not careful, he'll use this as a pretext to stop blogging on other days. Fellow bloggers, is this a plot?

  28. At 03:13 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    I got the impression that some civvy patient had made a derogatory remark to one of Our Boys, perhaps about the legitimacy of the Iraq war??????

  29. At 03:14 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    ontheledge, OK, interesting point. Perhaps there is a similar point to be made for geriatric patients beneftting from being "among there own" also?

    The problem with us attempting to have a sensible discussion about this is that the "outcry" ("outraged from Brighton") was down to political point scoring, I suspect, rather than anything else. The truth is most cases will be "it depends" - some service personnel may benefit from treatment in a dedicated setting, others not. Similarly, I suspect some geriatric patients would rather be treated on mxed wards. No doubt those, whether service or not, with a rapacious appetite for hard core porn would enjoy similar company also - you probably can't really have a ward to suit everybody. (That was meant to mean "a different ward for each taste" as opposed to "a single ward that would suit everybody". I probably need to be more careful with my language.)

  30. At 03:21 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Ledge (17), I referred to you as (16) at (21).

    Stephen (23), I thought you were going to challenge my own challenge, ref: the word ‘figure’ (15). But in response to your actual point, does this apply no matter where you secured the title doctor? I’m so sorry.

    ‘Dr’ H Z Hackenbush, not-Esq

  31. At 03:31 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Ontheledge wrote:

    John H - I accept all the points you make, and I think we basically agree. And, incidentally, I appreciate that there are hardcore porn users in all generations and all walks of life!

  32. At 03:35 PM on 04 Oct 2006, liz wrote:

    Message to the 16 year old on work experience at the Delhi blog centre :

    Am I being paranoid, or are entries taking longer than usual to be posted?

    Methinks this 'No Blog' day may, in fact, coincide with a big departmental meeting up in BH ....... Or is everybody out on a 'Jolly'?

  33. At 03:36 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Rachel (22),

    I agree.


    John H (26),

    Your fingering evidently deteriorates when you are being serious.

  34. At 03:40 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Ontheledge wrote:

    NotEsqDr.H - Yr comment noted!
    Ledge

  35. At 03:43 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Hmm.. Ontheledge, I must admit I was a bit surprised to hear the proposals coming from the Conservative person (Liam Fox, I seem to remember, but I may be totally wrong). I would have thought that the range of injuries that we must be dealing with as a result of Iraq & Afghanistan would be varied, requiring differing types of care and skilled nursing staff. How much beeter for them to be treated by the correct people in an NHS hospital, rather than lumping them together as "war wounded". It almost ghettoes (if there is such a word) them...

    sb27

  36. At 03:43 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    What was 26 when I posted is now 29 and will probably soon be something else.

    And yet we have dancing postcards.

    Lissa, a word in your shell-like about priorities???

    (Don't hit me!)

  37. At 03:43 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Tugoftheforelock wrote:

    FrancesO - Yes, the nerve of it, mere civvies having the temerity to question the legitimacy of the actions of our Great Leaders !?

  38. At 03:45 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Rhys wrote:

    The proposal is for servicepeople not to pay income tax when deployed, i.e. in Afghanistan, Iraq etc., under fire, away from families, at risk of death or injury, not simply to stop paying tax because they wear a uniform.

    Injured servicepeople, just as elderly or pregnant or other categories of patient, have specific needs that mean it is better for them to be treated separately from other patients. Admittedly the 'geriatric' example is insensitive by whoever used it first. Many service casualties are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, have lost colleagues or are a focus for those who bear strong anti-war feelings and therefore have specific security requirements.

  39. At 03:50 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Liz -(31) I don't think you're being paranoid. But maybe it's just YOUR entries which are taking longer to get posted...

  40. At 03:54 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Message to Eddie:

    You can stop staring at the page now. Time for a cup of tea, a trip to the loo, a quick shuffle of the papers then - HEY! - you're on the air!

    It's a bit like the moment when the Invigilator says "Pens down!"

  41. At 04:12 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Appy - I think you've offended Lissa.

    She's not coming out to play!

  42. At 04:16 PM on 04 Oct 2006, liz wrote:

    Re: 32 (well, it's 32 as I write this - but who knows what number it will be by the time this is posted?)
    Apologies to Maureen JollEy (straplinewriter of the day) - I wasn't referring to you when I referred to the BH Jolly ....

  43. At 04:48 PM on 04 Oct 2006, anne wrote:

    anyone else really touched by Sir's heartfelt tribute to Rupert in the newsletter?

  44. At 04:56 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Fearless Fred wrote:

    This is disconcerting to say the least! I frogged some time ago, but it hasn't appeared yet. However, Big Sister's frog from later has appeared :( Did I say something wrong to annoy EM or Lissa?

  45. At 04:57 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Marvellous Liz,

    I now have visions of a big strapping woman called Maureen Jolley carrying the entire PM team around a field whilst they lie back and swig champers and eat picnic food.

    All as punishment because she hasn't learned to "listen again".

    Big Sister, I think perhaps you're right. How about if I apologise, not for what I said, but for any offence it may have caused?...

    Bishop Perry.

  46. At 05:06 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    I have to be careful here, but I think "Our Boys" would be very uncomfortable if placed in a typical geriactric ward. I spent months visiting my late father (who had dementia), and my spirits sank every visit, looking at all the elderly, usually mentally feeble there. Nor would these patients need the same care as Our Boys brought back from the Wars.

    NHS hospitals yes, why duplicate facilities that are not normally needed at all (or at least I hope not!), but a ward, or half ward for the servicemen who probably would be able to relate to eachother more than civilians, but would also be able to mix with them. Similarly, geriactrics need their own special care and attention, generally getting it in their dedicated wards.

    Hadn't expected to post a serious blog here.

  47. At 05:12 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Costa N wrote:

    As this blog is about nothing in particular, I’ll use the opportunity to complain about the webcam. Is it just me or is the picture always frozen? Could it be that Eddie (it could be anyone really from the resolution I get) always wears that white shirt and never changes pose?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/webcam.html

  48. At 05:28 PM on 04 Oct 2006, anne wrote:

    have we not had that strapline before? it rings a bell, but maybe it was one of the many good suggestions on hte blog the other day.

  49. At 05:46 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Thanks for the reminder about the webcam Costa!

    Three blokes (can't see who's who) sitting quite still at the mo - two in white shirts; one in a yellow and black rugby shirt. Are they playing musical statues?

    btw, if these people being trafficked are all so "massive" surely they are failry easy to spot?

  50. At 05:55 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    The bloke with his back to the camera has had his left hand in the air for an age.

    It's not a real webcam is it? It's a new photograph every 10 to 15 minutes.

  51. At 06:17 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Webcam. Hm, I followed the link and the picture was very recent - which was promising (to be fair, BBC webcams are usually static images rather than live video - of course, technically, this is more difficult to express than I'm trying here). But when I refreshed, it stayed the same. This struck me as a bit odd, because it really was recent - and it seemed unlikely that I'd just happened to have viewed it at the right time. So I tried in a different browser - and there was a new image. I refreshed in the original one and it changed to the new image. So I another new browser and got a new picture. I refreshed in the original one and again it changed to the new one. I would like to say I tried in yet another new browser, but I've only got the three on this machine. Maybe I'll fire up the penguin and investigate further. I would guess it's a caching issue - images can be trickier than pages to refresh at will. Another interesting thing, in Firefox, you can right click and "view image" and see the webcam image slightly bigger and slightly clearer - how odd to shrink it in the first place.

    Finally, am I the only one to be annoyed by the "flickr.com" thing? I can live with the changing post cards because they're at the top and after the first comment or so, you can't see them. But the sodding flashing in the corner as it (apparently) reads data is infuriating.

  52. At 06:43 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John, I know not of the "flashing in the corner" of which you speak.

    Mind you, I am using boring old IE.

    Amazed you got away with "sodding" though.

  53. At 07:13 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Yeah, me too. I can't believe I put that in even though I thought it might get skootered - that was quite a long post to risk!

    Interesting that IE doesn't show it - it just seems to indicate that FF is reading from the flickr site. Guess that covers about 90% of people then.


  54. At 07:22 PM on 04 Oct 2006, andycraa wrote:

    John H. I agree with you about the flikr thing, I have a limit of 5Gb before I start to pay excess baggage fees, and I know the flash Flash is only a few microbytes but still, it might push me over the edge.

    I say we ask Lissa nicely (or the new Delhi Blog-lass) to have it removed.

    Lissa - can you remove it? Ta much, you can sign my next book prize :)

  55. At 07:44 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Monkey wrote:

    Toninho Cerezo, where are you?

  56. At 09:31 PM on 04 Oct 2006, John W wrote:

    Aperitif, FF, John H et al,

    I'm with you, against the fancy postcard stuff. (sorry, Lissa) This bit of technological fancy footwork is not to my liking. A grid of postcards that one can click on to get an enlarged version, yes, not this constant dancing (and constant connections to flickr.com). Or maybe that's old fogie me coming out again.

    I've given up on BBC webcams. GQT's webcam was equally static (especially when showing a sunny afternoon at 10pm)

  57. At 09:43 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

    Quick serious blog before I depart this county for a long weekend in Leeds - As ex-RAF myself, I remember there was no alternative to being nursed in a military hospital (my youngest was born in one in Germany), and being hospitalised away from home was the norm, as you were posted out of your home area anyway.

    There is a very strong sense of comeraderie in the Forces, always has been, even to the point of having specific phrases/language, and therefore understanding - I think that being nursed amongst civilians would, in a lot of cases, make Forces personnel feel quite exposed and uncomfortable.

    As Rhys said, there are also specific security requirements to think about...

    Goodeness, I need a lie down in a dark room...

    See you all Monday

    xx

  58. At 09:48 PM on 04 Oct 2006, anne wrote:

    well that's very odd. I went out at ten past 6 and just before I went I posted twice.Now I've come home to see if I got any reaction to either of them and voila! neither of them are anywhere to be seen. Have I been strangled?

    Maybe I should say something nice about Lissa with an a, but I do that quite regularly anyway. Well I thgought I did.

    well blow it for a game of soldiers then, I'm flouncing off to watch ER. Talk to you tomorrow guys, if I'm allowed!!

  59. At 10:14 PM on 04 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    hm - oddly there is a tag for just putting up a random selection of Flikr photos - I've got one on me blog.
    It displays three at random in a sensitive grey keyline [ahem]

    its too much to put here so I'll email.
    Worth a go i guess (and i have no idea how i got it - it sure wasn't me coding!!)

  60. At 10:25 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    Yes I agree too about the fancy postcards. Enough that we can see them without having them dancing about, & that irritating flicker thing at the bottom of the screen. And who ARE flicker anyway? It feels slightly sinister to have data passing through when I don't know what it's about & haven't asked for it. I guess I'm turning into a grumpy old woman - technology - dancing postcards - bah humbug. Give me dead mice anyday. Now THEY don't move.
    Anne - don't take your disappeared postings too personally. Though I did when it happened to me. I think it's down to technology again. In fact probably that flicker thing is draining the life out of your postings & using the energy to power the dancing postcards. Or am I just a bit confused?

  61. At 10:28 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Charles Hatton wrote:

    I’m beginning to suspect that there is some kind of mathematical correlation here. The less Eddie puts in his blog, the more comments we add and vice versa. I think that the good Dr Hackenbush needs to consult his slide rule and give us the full equation.

  62. At 10:34 PM on 04 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Oh Lissa, or which moderator is on duty today, you'd better get over to the flikr page with the listeners' postcards. The title of Hilary Aikman's postcard from Cumnock in Ayrshire has a fairly hilarious, but definitely offensive typo!

    I'm sure it's not just in the mind of this beholder....?

    SB 58

  63. At 11:19 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Charles (61 or whatever) I think you're right, and it backs up my conspiracy theory thingey. Eddie's definitely got something up his sleeve here. I reckon he'll just keep repeating the same blog message under different headings for the next few days and step, metaphorically, back to see what happens.

    Can we rise to the challenge?

  64. At 11:22 PM on 04 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Don't say I didn't warn you - that's about an hour since I tried to draw someone's attention to it. So excited when I posted that I got my grammaticals in a twist too, don't know why I bothered really. I'm sure Hilary A won't be too delighted though.

    SB 63

  65. At 11:23 PM on 04 Oct 2006, ontheledge wrote:

    Hey, Val, I've spotted the typo too! I thought it was some coded reference to off duty shennanigans on the part of Flickr/Flicka/Flicked her ...... Well, who'd have thought the BBC moderators would have let that one through?

  66. At 11:33 PM on 04 Oct 2006, andycranc wrote:

    Cumnock - in case you don't see it before it gets un-hacked : the n was a c.

    Couldn't help laughing out loud ... perhaps my beholder's mind...

  67. At 12:05 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    1) I have just discovered that you can click on the postcards and see the larger versions. Thank you all, and to the universal urge to complain.

    2) Lissa with an A would be Alissa. Lisa is the only similar name that I’m aware of, so is there a Lisse or Lisser? Maybe it’s Lisser Cooker.

    3) Monkey, why are you looking for Toninho Cerezo? And is it true you were born from an egg on a mountain top?

    4) In answer to Charles, how about this:
    The inverse of the square on the hypotenuse is less than or equal to the square who complains about this flawed mathematical equation, to the power of the negative of root of one Dr Eric Blair, who figures on the PM programme - it says here.

    5) Alive

  68. At 12:15 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    David Cameron is an anagram of Do crave admin, and besides this I insist his head is too tall...

  69. At 02:07 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Prof. S. R. Pedant wrote:

    sb 69
    Olé

    Back to 23
    Stephen, Esq., Revered Leader of STROP
    wrote:
    "isn't the suffix "Esq." reserved for Gentry who have no other title "

    Not any more. It may now be attached to any male person. (I use it on about 50% of my correspondence - the rest goes (mainly) to women.)
    Incidentally, most medical practitioners are not now, strictly speaking, "doctors". Most are Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery (M.B., Ch.B. [or similar] as distinct from "actual " doctors - M.D.) and have the title as a matter of courtesy. It would, therefore, be perfectly proper (perhaps even desirable) to address such a one as Dr. N. E. Boddie, Esq., unless the Good Doctor were a lady; and there is where the difficulty arises, if you have had no previous correspondence on which to base your decision.
    No doubt due to American influence, some dentists (F.R.C.D.S.) are now electing to be addressed as "Doctor" even though "Surgeons" (F.R.C.S) heve been traditionally addressed as "Mr".
    Remember "Emergency - Ward 10" when Dr. Les Large became a Fellow and the nurses kept forgetting and becoming all flustered?

    Oh, how we laughed.

  70. At 08:28 AM on 05 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    DR H 67, Lissa-an-A goes back to very early blog which did have something to do with Lisse being the place she was named after but the e was changed to an a for ease of use/completeness/deviousness (oh no that's my idea isn't it?).
    So have they changed Cumnock yet?

  71. At 08:40 AM on 05 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Nope, they still haven't. Local Info:

    "lOne of the more comedic aspects of Cumnocks (sic) history relates to a covenant drawn up in 1800 by the local reverend and eighty two residents. This bond declared that the adherents would agree to have the amount of drinks consumed at funerals regulated. Apparently it was not uncommon for these ostensibly solemn occasions to become rowdy, hence the covenant. Some may say this tendency to imbibe a little more than is appropriate has descended through the generations and is apparent today :=)." ref Cumnock.net (still don't know how to do links, hope this doesn't get moderated as it's quite interesting.
    SB 71

  72. At 08:53 AM on 05 Oct 2006, big sister wrote:

    (Stifled yawn - The Today Programme playing in the background, time: 8.55 am.)

    "A new day, a new blog"

    I wonder what games Eddie has for us today?

  73. At 09:28 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Stephen, Leader of STROP wrote:

    Prof Pedant

    I knew that the blog would provide an answer.

    I am humbled by your greater knowledge

  74. At 09:41 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

    Lissa was off yesterday. Today however, as I speak, postcards are being scanned.

    And I started a blog entry a moment ago, about the rudeness of people who don't acknowledge when you have held open a door for them....but I decided it was too naff. And that's not a hurdle I refuse to jump very often.

  75. At 09:56 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    To put in a link, copy and paste the following, but with the character before ‘your text’ and after the final ‘a’.

    a href="http://www.yoursite.com"your text/a

  76. At 10:02 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Prof.S. R. Pedant wrote:

    sb 75

    Yr 74

    Young man;
    As you proceed through LIFE you will find that politeness is its own reward. i.e. if you expect your good manners to be acknowledged you will be continually disappointed.

  77. At 10:22 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Aaargh! My 75 made sense initially, but has come out with some gaps and blank spots. You need some characters for your weblink that I have obviously been barred from using. Would somebody please show Valery what to do?

    ...........................................................
    _______________________________________

    ````````````````````````````````````````

  78. At 10:32 AM on 05 Oct 2006, big sister wrote:

    74 - Hi there Eddie

    - and welcome to the PM listeners' blog. As a newcomer you may not be aware that this is open to allcomers.

    We've been waiting for Lissa to provide us with the technology to start up our own topic headings. If you'd like to add your own weight(!) to our debate(!!), perhaps you'd like to email her too. I believe you can do this on
    pm@bbc.co.uk

    Personally, I'm with you on your current suggestion: people who don't respond when you hold doors open for them should be hung drawn and quartered. Rudeness is unpardonable.

    What do fellow bloggers think?

  79. At 10:39 AM on 05 Oct 2006, liz wrote:

    Hurrah! Hurrah!
    Today's a lovely day!
    The poets are a-rhyming
    Lissa's a-fulltiming
    - and Eddie's come out to play!

    (In honour of National Poetry Day - I don't usually do rhyming blogs)

  80. At 10:40 AM on 05 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Eddie - yes to the door holding thing. I once did that (cos I was brung up proper) for a lady in her seventies and she shouted "What - you think I'm too old or something??! eh?! [mumble]"

    Mind you she did walk through the door while i held it open - though I had images of letting go and seeing her catapaulted into the street.

    It was one of those doors in Boots.

    I also get the same thing walking down the street - I'm constantly moving out of people's way - yet noone acknowledges and they still traipse 4-abreast, blocking the path.
    One day I'm just gonna plough through using all my six-foot 13 stone frame and cackle about the carnage.

    My way of "going postal"

  81. At 10:43 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Aren’t hanging, drawing and quartering quite rude, too? Well, maybe not drawing.

  82. At 10:48 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    whisht, you need super powers.

    P.S. Why do tall people always insist on carrying a frame with them?

  83. At 10:54 AM on 05 Oct 2006, big sister wrote:

    Dr H - Yes, I guess they are (from the point of view of the recipient, anyway ...)
    I merely used the expression to indicate how cross I get when, like Lord Mair, you come across folk who seem to feel it beneath them to acknowledge acts of politeness. Yes, perhaps polteness is its own reward, as suggested by ProfPed above, but the fact is that it does help to make the world a much much nicer place to live in - and, if unacknowledged, it starts to wither and die.
    I'm with YOU, Eddie, on this one!

  84. At 11:31 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    If it helps, and I appreciate I may not, I opened a door for someone earlier - we have swipe card access where I am now - and was thanked twice.

    P.S. I never even knew I had a big sister, but thanks for looking out for me, so to speak.

  85. At 11:42 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Annasee wrote:

    I'm just a bit worried that Eddie's not getting out enough, if his blogs are going to be about "politeness in this day & age " & similar. And not forgetting yesterday when he had nothing to write about. We don't want him turning into the predictable right wing columnists who litter the weekend papers.
    Eddie - perhaps you might be allowed to go out on another little adventure taking the pizzas into TV centre again? I'm almost sure they've fixed the lifts since your last trip.
    Or, for a really big laugh, you could look at the "show me the funnies" part of the bbc site about the new comic writing competition. There are some examples. I listened to them. Has anyone else? And what do you think?

  86. At 11:43 AM on 05 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush-typo wrote:

    That should have been an ‘it’, not an ‘I’. (84)

    SB86

  87. At 11:59 AM on 05 Oct 2006, big sister wrote:

    Your welcome, Dr. H -I'm there for anybody who needs a big sister

  88. At 12:23 PM on 05 Oct 2006, ontheledge wrote:

    Hey, Eddie, where are the postcards????

    It's nearly 12.30 as I write, yet not only have you 'opted out' (no blog, no new entries ..) but there's no sign of these 'further postcards' we were promised.

    And, while we're on the subject, PLEASE can Lissa stop the 'flickring'?

  89. At 04:46 PM on 05 Oct 2006, bigdex wrote:

    Dearest Eduardo

    This has nothing to do with anything, could possibly relate to "I've" at a push.

    I was just staring blankly (near comatose, I MUST get a job) at your portrait pic at the top of this page and it occurred to me that you look a bit pissed. Are you? I don't see why us hard working (one day soon) licence payers should subsidise your office binges and then be forced to view the results. Tis a scandal.

    I fell in love with you last week. I've not been very well.

    Hardened regards

    Declan
    Brixton (but not in the prison cause they're fulled up tonight).

  90. At 06:59 PM on 05 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Whisht (80)

    Re: It was one of those doors in Boots.

    That sounds complicated and I can't quite picture how such doors would work, so I think it was very kind of you to hold it open. I wouldn't have known what to do with it - I find 'Puss in Boots' unlikely enough.

  91. At 08:01 PM on 05 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Doc (68),

    It is. But then it has to be to accomodate all of that Blue Skies Thinking.

    The monicker to which you refer is also an anagram of "I Crave Dod Man", which suggests a particular liking for the infamous leader of the Diddy Folk (folk that, I believe, we have discussed on an earlier thread). Except it's one "D" short of full desire. (Does that mean it's "full esire"? What exactly is "full esire" - discuss).

    Perhaps I ought to switch this coffee for some wine :/

  92. At 12:27 AM on 06 Oct 2006, Prof. S. R. Pedant wrote:

    sb 92

    Dear Ms A, re 90.

    "I find 'Puss in Boots' unlikely enough."

    Many decades ago, I accepted the challenge of the, now, late President Kennedy to walk 50 miles in 24 hours.
    I completed the route with six hours to spare, but it had been a warm day and my feet didn't share the euphoria experienced by the rest of my body. I can assure you that Pus in Boots is not at all ...
    Ah.
    I see my mistake.
    Sorry to have bothered you.

  93. At 11:48 AM on 06 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Prof (92),

    Ewwww!

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.