The Article

Mike Godwin observed that if an argument lasts long enough there will be a comparison involving the Nazis from one of the involved parties. He called this, eponymously, ”Godwin’s Law”.

There is another approach (another Law) that crops up in arguments, I’ve noticed. It’s an attack that normally comes from stupid people of the male variety who know they have lost a debate - and that’s attacking the opposing party for the amount of pussy they have either smelt, licked, fingered or fucked.

This could have well been highlighted by someone else because I think it’s a common attack. I have been on the receiving end of this personal attack on a number of occasions with my resultant thought, “What the fuck has that got to do with the argument?” Despite the opposition having no clue to the “amount of pussy” I’ve had (although let’s just say my social confidence hasn’t exactly been sky-high since moving back to Liverpool), they seem to think this attack is a way of winning the present argument - perhaps proving the amount of girls he has had is congruent, in some way, with the intellectual disagreement we are conversing in…or, psychology, he is proving his male dominance in the argument and my inferiority at the lack of vagina I’ve had, which is such a caveman mentality and, surely, has nothing to do with an argument, right?

Maybe I should argue with people who can actually keep to the topic in disagreement as their is much erudition in learning something you thought to be right (but was wrong) or you didn’t know. It’s much more scholarly than comparing the thickness of little black books.

Mind you, I do need to get out in the field. Has been far too long.

Stephen

My first Wrestlemania was 2000 when Edge & Christian won that epic ladder match, Kurt Angle lost both his belts in one match and which wrestling fanatic could forget that fata four-way.

I’ve never missed a Wrestlemania despite losing interest back in 2004. (I had sporadic interests throughout the years since then.)

———-

This year I would loved to have seen Triple H and The Rock, since they’re both participating this year, take each other on as those two used to put on brilliant performances. But I suspect that the WWE will induct The Rock in the Wrestling Hall of Fame next year thus squeezing another appearance from The Rock at Wrestlemania 30.

Anyway, this years predictions:

Cena def. Rock:

This is obvious as The Rock was only here to plug GI Joe. This is not a criticism - he has every right to have the title for this short period of time because he has given more to the WWE than anyone to date. So toodle-pip for another year, Rock.

CM Punk def. Undertaker:

The Undertaker has reached a milestone: 20 and 0. Rumour is that Undertaker would like to job to a rookie (or up-and-coming star) as opposed to a veteran (like HHH or Shawn Michaels). This would give who ever defeats Undertaker a huge push in the business and there’s no better to give it to than CM Punk.

However, it would have to take something dramatic to defeat the Undertaker as everything from Pedigrees, Camcorders and being locked in the Dressing Room (remember A-Train and Big Show?) to take him out. So, therefore here are two ideas to how Undertaker could lose:

-Something to do with the non-fictional demise of Paul Bearer and the Urn weakening his powers.

-Brock Lesnar comes down and attacks Undertaker. This would be a good move because a) Lesnar is managed and Paul Heyman, who also manages Punk b) there is already a publicly-known feud between Undertaker and Lesnar behind the thesps. WWE would probably have told the to put personal differences aside and instead channel it into a storyline that could go on for a few months.

Alberto Del Rio def. Swagger:

If one match consists of a World Championship changing hands then the other must remain with the defender…and Del Rio will retain. Besides, Swagger has badly injured Del Rio’s manager so there needs to be some justice in the story line.

Shield def.Orton, Sheamus and Show

A little tricky to predict this one but surely, with this being The Shield’s first major match, the faction needs a push otherwise there’s no other way to go for them but to walk through the crowd and attack wrestlers like they’ve been doing since they formed.

I predict Randy Orton will turn on Sheamus and Show because the latter two have been squabbling too much and Randy has acted the arbiter, which is too innocent for his whole image. RKO Sheamus, let The Shield pin and then team with The Shield like another legacy??

Miz def. Barrett

I can see the belt changing hands

Ryback def. Henry

Battle of brawn: could be good match. Can’t see Henry winning this somehow. I like Ryback, too. He looks mean.

Hell No def. Dolph

Belts retained. Would be a great match if it was just Bryan vs Dolph.

Jericho def. Fandango

This was the trickiest match to predict. I can’t see someone with Jericho’s talent and status jobbing to a gimmicky twirler. Although the Fandango needs a win against an established name for a push - not as established as Jericho, though.

Triple H def Brock Lesnar:

If I am right about The Undertaker scenario then Undertaker will attack Lesnar.

Everyone knows Lesnar’s sheer brillance in the form of his agility and frightening power. His technique as wrestler is great so he wouldn’t mind losing this. Likewise, Triple H is brilliant but probably not up to scratch as he used to be. Triple H, too, has lost the last two Wrestlemanias and doesn’t have a brilliant history winning at Wrestlemania. He’ll win this.

Funk team def. Rhodes scholars and Bella twins:

I really don’t give a fuck about this match. Stupid rubbishy gimmicks and the only one I feel sorry for in the whole match is Rhodes as he can wrestle. (Is this the dark match? I hope so.)

Looking forward to it.

Stephen

There is too much mockery and torment inflicted on animals for the sake of taking a picture and posting it to get likes on Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr etc. It’s unethical marketing.

How about I string a poodle up by the balls and hang it off the ceiling for the sake of its “cute” yapping?

Painting your dog and saying “like this if you think it’s adorable”, is neglect.

Think, idiots.

Stephen

I saw a video on Youtube of an artist playing guitar (a very famous guitarist but for the sake of what I’m talking about I’ll refrain from appellations) and commented on the video. My comment proved to be a hit on the video after giving a mini panegyric on why he was one of the greatest.

I got comments from other fellow viewers about how right I was, with the odd one disagreeing which is perfectly acceptable given that this Western democratic citizens in discussion.

In turns out, now, that the video has been taken down because of infringement. Why is this pathetic?

-The guitarist in question is a multi-millionaire with a brand that could exponentially boost his piggy bank if he explores other avenues of marketing and business other than gigging all the time.

-The video was shot almost two years ago meaning the DVD has easily passed its saturation stage in sales. If anything the 10 minutes of the 2 hour video (I mean it was only 10 minutes for God’s sake) would probably give it a boost in sales.

It’s seems sickening that some people who have a love for an artist are repaid by being stopped from promoting or even showing their love for him/her for the sake of money/infringement.

Just remember who significantly contributed to your dreams, ************.

So I can’t finger wag the greedy fat cunt because of the Royal Charter bollocks in case I might be wrong or misleading. Wait a minute, it doesn’t count for mini blogs…or blogs people don’t read, does it?

Fuck off, Slash.

Stephen 

It’s a ransom.

As a media organisation, if you breach  the terms and not volunteer to be regulated then you pay £1m.; if you volunteer and breach, you pay a lot less.

-So, a flaw is that the big media groups can get away with breeching and perhaps even set up a pot, as part of their operational costs, called “breaching fines”. Unfortunately, for smaller media groups this might twist their arm and force them into signing up to a regulator as they cannot afford the fines. Nick Clegg highlighted yesterday in the HofC that local papers are vulnerable and have not been the cause in previous breaches. Yet, the Royal Charter does not separate media based on micro and macro.

————-

The whole specification puts emphasis on the independent body that seeks, employs and monitors the regulators.

Specifically I have picked an example of a tongue twister - Pam Ayres would be proud of this one - that sums up this point: Schedule 1 - 2.1 says, “…Commissioner for Public Appointments shall appoint the Appointments Committee…” and all that jazz. There are so many appointing appointees that the point is lost (my attempt at a ditty). As I explain:

-Anyone who thinks that there will be freedom should consider this point. The amount of red tape and quango-esque approach to setting up and refining a regulator only fortifies the wall of censorship. Why are so many boards, committees and bodies (which did confuse me a bit when reading) established to find a regulator? These quangos are only established to get people into work and pen-push; the more people, the more subjectivity is brought into regulating and seeking a regulator - which, of course, hinders freedom of speech since subjectivity offers a polemical analysis whether that be in media or obtaining the right employee to regulate the press.

———-

The first point of schedule 3 states the “…Chair and members of the Board must be appointed in a genuinely open, transparent and independent way, without any influence from industry or Government.”

-Getting a job as a regulator or establishing a regulator or establishing the establisher who establish a regulator looks easy since most people lose out on applying for jobs to others who suck cock or rely upon daddy to talk to his boss. Well, good news, not these jobs!

—————

“The board of the Recognition Panel shall from time to time publish policies, guidance and information, as it thinks appropriate…”

-This might be nitpicking but it seems very woolly to say they can from “time to time” and only if they “think” necessary to work . If this is serious there needs to definitive decisions with a strict timetable to publish information regardless of the how much content or how serious claims are made - if any. Public money is not going towards them twiddling their thumbs or going “hhm, maybe we could do that”.

——-

Point 8 of Schedule 3 is the about importance of freedom of speech - the point the conservatives wanted.

-This is contradicted, however, with 8B 8C and 8D with 8A concerning an unwelcome of “press intrusion” that will surely keep a smile on Max Mosley’s mush: you can play with your anal beads in quiet now, Max.

-Point 8B states that any material published by “subscribers will be held strictly accountable”. Mao Tse Tung had this point for China, didn’t he? I think it’s the word “strictly” that frightens the “subscriber”.

——-

Point 15 puts emphasis on “publication of corrections and apologies”

-The media already do this.

———

Point 16 emphasise that if there is no settlement between subscriber and complainant then the apology rests with the Board.

-If the media exercise their right not to issue an apology surely this undermines the Board if they are having to apologise all the time. The knowledge that the Board will be held accountable for the apology could render the media impenetrable to offer a sorry - this point could actually be the thin end of the wedge for Boards if keep apologising.

——-

Point 17 says that material cannot be prevented from publishing.

-Fuck’s sake. What is the point in having a Board if the material has been released. The damage will have been done if it’s in the public’s hands! 

——

Milton opposed it, and Orwell opposed it: two goliaths of Literature with the former’s radical work opposing a wide established pious mindset and the latter’s name becoming an adjective for the censorship and control of the State. This regulation does not serve to tell us fresh stories or stories we are entitled to know. The recent Leveson debate has been a learning curve and helped seek out the rats of Fleet Street. In the past we have dealt with mendacious little twats who pour shite hournalism in the papers; we’ve seen in the past journalists fired (take the gobshite Piers Morgan in 2004) or heavily fined.

The Royal Charter’s bulwark is a step too far and needs ironing of its flaws if it’s to be concrete.

That’s my summary. I have not volunteered to have a regulator so don’t start complaining otherwise I’m going to have to rack up a £1m.

Stephen

Here are three ideas for the Eurovision:

1) We stick Iron Maiden in and with a bit of luck they blow the whole fucking pantomime to kingdom come for the next 3 millennia.

2) We audition raw talent (bands specifically) that are trying to break into the music industry as this, as tacky as it is, will give them a huge endorsement and publicity if selected to represent.

3) We pull out and leave the eye-ties and frogs to feud with a ukulele or two spoons.

Sorry, Bonnie.

Stephen

I want to post this. It’s bob-on with its analysis but I have to pick myself up and get back on my horse (before it’s stuck in a lasagne). I don’t agree with the phone interview analysis were I gave a full 21 minute - I’ve very thorough and good at remembering - giving a punctilious description of my entrepreneurial ventures with the interviewer saying describing it as “fantastic”. (I may be clutching at straws but I’m not complaining.)

Anyhow, I can categorically say this has been one of many. If you can be arsed reading:

Dear Stephen,

I hope this email finds you well. Thank you for coming in to meet with the Bright Network team.   It was a pleasure to meet you in person.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, we will not be progressing your application any further.  This is a highly competitive programme and unfortunately you did not score high enough at the face-to-face interview to achieve a place at the assessment centres.

We received hundreds of applications for this year’s programme and only invited the top candidates to interview.   It was an incredibly difficult decision to select candidates for the assessment centres as all the applications were very strong.  I have included feedback from each stage of your application below – hopefully you will find this helpful for your future applications and should you choose to re-apply to NEF in the future, which we strongly encourage you to do after your current course has finished.

Stage 1 – the online application

Key strength – Your pitch was good, detailing your entrepreneurial experience and demonstrating the key competencies of resilience and drive.

How it could have been improved – We would have liked to have seen more engagement with NEF and also more evidence of your leadership skills.

Stage 2 – your phone interview

Key strength- You gave good examples in your answers, demonstrating commercial awareness. We also liked your focus and ambition.

How it could have been improved – Our suggestion at this stage was that you can go into more detail in your answers as our consultant sometimes had to probe your answers to get you to show yourself off to your best advantage.

Stage 3 – your face-to-face interview

Key strength- We liked your passion and enthusiasm. You have lots of ideas and proactivity so well done.

How it could have been improved- We would have liked to have seen more evidence of your leadership and team working skills.

META summary – your META test results indicate that you do have strong entrepreneurial potential. Whilst these results are not definitive, they are a useful indicator of areas where you could excel or where you could potentially improve.  You scored very highly on entrepreneurial opportunism which could suggest that you find it easy to spot new trends, keep up to date and can connect seemingly unrelated events. This could also mean that you find it hard to focus on one task and assume things are simpler than they really are. You scored less well on entrepreneurial vision. This could mean that you are motivated to change the world, are strategic and can sacrifice short term incentives for longer term ones. The flipside of this is that you might have a tendency to get carried away with projects, be disappointed if others don’t share your idea and are unwilling to follow others whose vision doesn’t match your own.

If you do have any further questions at all don’t hesitate

Best,

****