14 March 2006

Infrequent blogging.

Some of you may have noticed that my posts are becoming more and more sparse over the last week or so.

Several reasons;

1. I'm working on a massive post that hopefully will cause some controversy when I finally get round to posting it. It could take me a few weeks to complete it, research is slow work sometimes and I keep drinking wine in the evening which is never conducive.

2. I'm absorbed in reading other blogs so much I never get round to writing anything anymore. I haven't really got much to say on the education debate, I know it's Blair's last stand and such but I just don't know enough about education and I'm not quite as arrogant as people might think to pretend otherwise (I know I'm arrogant on other subjects). I'm not actually that sure what the fuss is all about. If I read the concessions right, we are going to get concrete, statutory restrictions on selection for the first time ever. Maybe it is all a ruse.

3. I've actually been quite busy lately, which is amazingly un-blogging like for a nerd like me. Anyway for all who know me, I'll try and up my game. I'm terribly pleased by the way that anyone, anywhere in the world who types 'I hate Thatcher' into Google or Yahoo will get my blog as first result. Ain't that great? I'm the number one Thatcher hater, just have to get around to correcting the punctuation and grammar on that old post, oh well!


  1. I am very glad to hear you are expending some effort doing research. I look forward to the post, and hope it's better than the one I've just criticised for being a pathetic straw man exercise.

  2. carry bag man15/3/06 11:59 am


    I suspect a few people in our Northern ex- mining communities might take issue with you over who loathes Thatcher the most !!!!

    as for anonymous, you arrogant tosspot. when did you last write a contribution that was remotely interesting ?
    at least Neil has the courage of his convictions and does not hide behind anonymity. now go away if you do not have anything constructive to add.

    Neil look forward to reading your "controversial" post based on your past history it will probably end up on the daily politics.

  3. Carry bag man: Well I am currently on point 6 out of 20. So I am making slow progress with it, but hopefully by next week it will be finished.

    You are probably right about the mining community hating Thatcher more. Much as she poked into my life, she didn't quite send the police on horseback to beat everyone up in my street.

    Anon: The thing about criticising religion is people take offence for pointing out scientific evidence. The point of the post is that the middle ground between creationism and evolution is an even more illogical one.

    To believe in a God like ALL religions do, is to believe it had some say in our existence. This is counter to the evidence of evolution. If like some buddhists do, you believe god is just the universe then that is no different from an atheists philosophy. Surely you would acknoledge this?

  4. Buddhism is agnostic on the matter of gods. It is perfectly possible to be both atheist and Buddhist. Buddhism does not ascribe creation to supernatural beings - so, not quite all religions, eh?

  5. Exactly, but is Buddhism really a religion? It could just as easily be described as a philosophy.

  6. That remains a moot point, of course. ;)