h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi psi


linkage:


Certainly there is a /historical/ linkage rooted in, for example, catholic scholasticism I don't see that the notion of 'moral responsibility is strictly necessary in consideration of a putative free will in relation to a putative strict causal determinism** any more than a deity is.


**Since I cleave to the view that strict causal determinism is disconfirmable I am pretty much in the pseudo-problem camp.


level of decisions:

I think attempting to do this might be quite problematic. For example 'Jones decides to shoot Smith tomorrow' seems to me to be somewhat different from 'Jones decides to pull the trigger of the loaded revolver that he is pointing at Smith'.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

Linkage: I agree, moral responsibility is not necessary in a consideration of free will, but clearbury's stance is rather vice versa, in order to qualify as a compatibilist in his view, one has to hold that the free will being defended is sufficient for moral responsibility.

I also agree that strict determinism is disconfirmable, although we disagree about the implications of this I think.

level of decisions:
I see it this way, PAP is clearly defeated by Frankfurt examples and that's why the indeterminist replies by positing PAPD (PAP at the decision level, that's what clearbury did), then the compatibilist can go to a deeper level, the aspect of weighting reasons embedded within the decision procedure, and put Black's mechanism there. But then the incompatibilist can come up with yet another revised PAP and so on.

In summary, I think it's a draw.

hi psi

Stance:

I'm with clearbury on this. I think there is a clear distinction to be made between classical compatibilists and Fischerian semi-compatibilists (or 'broad' and 'narrow' compatibilists as Hunt has it).

Certainly, for the 'narrow' compatibilist moral responsibility /alone/ is the issue not 'free will' . However, if clearbury understands compatibilism to be what is termed 'broad' compatibilism then his qualification seems sensible.

Implications:

I'm sure we do disagree and we might doubly do so as I'm with Ryle on the notion of 'free will' as philosophical phlogiston.

The trend (beginning, perhaps with P. Strawson) seems to be towards te removal of the notion of free will from the debate leaving only the contention that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism

Decisions, Decisions:

A close reading of AP&MR shows that Frankfurt locates PAP at the 'decision level'. His own version of PAP should probably be cast as

'A person is morally responsible for what (he has decided to do)** and has done only if he could have done otherwise'

I'm not sure why this makes it indeterminist. in AP&MR frankfurt would seem to be neutral on the determism/indeterminism issue.

**Paraphrasing Frankfurt's 'Jones4 decides to do and does do'

Weighting reasons.

Is this a reference to Fischer's' moderate reason responsiveness'?

A draw:

I'm not persuaded ntil I see mechanism for countefactual intervention that unequivocally excludes 'flickers of freedom'.

must go.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

Stance: fair enough.

Implications: I'd agree that 'free will' is a misnomer.

Decisions: I don't think Frankfurt's PAP is at the decision level (PAPD), it is more like a semi-PAPD.

A semi decision level is 'A person is morally responsible for what (he has decided to do)** and has done only if he could have done otherwise'

Full decision level would be:
'A person is morally responsible for what (he has decided to do)** and has done only if he could have /decided/ otherwise'

I'm totally baffled by this:
"I'm not sure why this makes it indeterminist. in AP&MR frankfurt would seem to be neutral on the determism/indeterminism issue."
Could you clarify?

ttfn

psi-

Stance:

It is important I think to disinguish between 'narrow' and 'broad' compatibilism. The latter with its inclusion 'free will' (whatever /is/ meant by that) seems to be more difficult to defend.

Semi-PAPD

I think we are veering into humptydumptyism here. However I think there is a difficulty with your

'A person is morally responsible for what (he has decided to do)** and has done only if he could have /decided/ otherwise'

Since PAPD appears to be reducible to

''A person is morally responsible for what he has decided to do only if he could have /decided/ otherwise'

Since the attribution of moral responsibility lies at the level of decision irrespective of action.

Totally Baffled

In his subsequent paper 'Freedom of the will' [Jourmal of Philosophy, LXVIII, no. 1 (January 14, 1971)) says 'my conception of free will appears neutral with regard to the problem of determinism'. He presents his 'concept' in terms of of his rejection of PAP.

So I see no reason to assume that Frankfurt's PAP implies determinism, as you suggest, necessitating a PAPD response in support of indeterminism.

bsy

Bx4,

Yes, perhaps the distinction between 'narrow' and 'broad' compatibilism is useful.

I don't think your charge of humptydumptyism is warranted here, but recall that this:

'A person is morally responsible for what he has decided to do only if he could have /decided/ otherwise'

is clearbury's formulation of PAPD, so if that is problematic then you could say so on the thread and it would be interesting to see his response.

Totally Baffled:

Me too, I don't understand why you think I have said that Frankfurt's PAP implies determinism, it doesn't. What I've said is that clearbury's argument is that free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and it is this that determinism precludes. Frankfurt examples are an attempt to show that the ability to do otherwise is not necessary for moral responsibility. In that case, it wouldn't matter whether determinism is true or not, hence Frankfurt can be neutral.

However, in defending Frankfurt examples against clearbury's PAPD, I got into matters of brains and indeterminism because of the accusation of question-begging.

I hope that clarifies.

I still think it's a draw.

ttfn

hi jank Just spotted you were back. I hope you, Mrs. Jankaas and the Jankaasjes had a good time. Are you now back at Global Plastic? Sadly I have been remiss in posting highlights and I'm about to sail DB to the mainland then onto Edinburgh for the Festival (where their will be much cake) so I'm unlikely to manage this any time soon but the full Norwegian story can be found starting here (#1521): http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F7737541?thread=5164739&post=98416762#p98416762 Sadly, I did not learn to windsurf due to the paucity of schools in Fennoscandia but I have found one in Hamburg so next spring...... I have however bought a sea kayak. Conventionally, I should commiserate with you over the outcome of the World Cup final but actually I don't give a rat's erse.;) Have you been put in premod because of the WUMtroll's 'complaint'? I have manage to get hold of the full version of Jones talk but I have not listened to it yet. I'ts on a memory stick somewhere so I'll post it as and when. Strange to think he and I would have been contemporaries at Edinburg University had I not embarked on the Waderjahren.... must go bsy

howdy Bored, afternoon psi,


yep, back in Satan Towers wading through mountains of keck. Spanish beach rapidly becoming a distant memory.....great time was had by all though! routine was thus;

9:00 ish - get up
10:00 ish - hit the beach
13:00 ish - go to apartment complex swimming pool
15:00 ish - lunch followed by siesta
17:00 ish - beach again
18:00 ish - pool again
21:00 ish - dinner
12:00 ish - bed

repeat to fade, though insert the odd "cultural" visit into town, 3 windsurfing sessions/week, 1 day spent at Aqualandia;

http://www.aqualandia.net/aqualandia

my BH refused to come along this year (to Aqualandia that is!) as it is crammed to the rafters with CHAVs from every nation (i can vouch that the "Tramp Stamp" is officially global!). well what to expect from a funpark set in Benidorm..... and without her good self the kids and i were there when it opened and had been on all the rides we dared go on 20 times before 12:00. after that queueing takes 20 plus mins. yes it's hell on earth, but the kids love it.

besides that the kids made friends with 2 Spanish kids of similar age. thankfully their English was sufficient for them to interact. just as well since my daughter insisted she was "speaking Spanish actually" when all she did was speak broken English with a Spanish accent........shades of Fawlty Towers' Manuel


snorkeling was a bit poor due to strong winds and some jellyfish. though the winds meant i had some of the best windsurfing moments of my life. tiny boards + big sails + 25 knots plus = AAAAARRRRGHGHHHELLYEAHHHHHHH!!!!!

hope you get to have a go as planned next year.


thanks for your travel-link, will read it at my leasure later on.

"WUMtroll's 'complaint'"; curiouser it gets. he is right now most civil to me, which is fine though a bit strange. but beyond a brief phase of pre-mod (now gone) the threatened Draconian actions of the BBC Committee never materialised. odd tactics, so we'll how things develop.....


tot straks!

hi psi

Skye

I've written a reply to your latest on 'compatibilism' but we'll be off before the board opens so here a quick summary.

Assuming a basic Kripke modal logic with Axiom K then your argument as to simplification of my 4. is correct. However, if you look at Swartz's correct 'form' @(H => S); H; * S. neither H nor S take the @ operator as they would if Axiom K was in play.

So since Swartz's modal system seems to lack Axiom K then my 4. @(@H => @S) should be read as producing the /same/ outcome in a modal system without axiom K as would result from @(H => S) in a modal system with Axiom K,

bsy

Hi Bx4,

Yes, I see, Swartz doesn't need axiom K, since @(H => S); H; * S is correct in any case. In other words, in the cases presented, we have H but we don't have @H, so K doesn't come into play. I had assumed we'd all be using S5 though.

Have a safe journey.

ttfn

hi psi

'since @(H => S); H; * S is correct in any case'

Not quite. I think his "'correct' form" is bit odd since for reasons obscure he seems to want to arrive at a contingent conclusion S rather than a necessary conclusion @S. I thought the point was to arrive at a necessary conclusion, @S, without committing the modal scope fallacy (MSF) .

Since everybody else seemed happy with Swartz's explanation of the modal fallacy and his "'correct' form I decided to stick with it hence my @(@H => @S); @H; * @S which yields a necessary conclusion without the MSF.

However, I think Swartz supposed "'correct' form" is actually incorrect and if you expand @(H => S) using Axiom K you get:

@(H => S); @H => @S; @H; * @S

So again you get a necessary conclusion without the MSF. What you don't get is a contingent conclusion. It is I think possible to to this if you include Axiom M, @p => p in system K yielding:

@(H => S); @H => @S; @H; * @S; * S

Another difficulty with the Svartz text is that his explanation is a wee bit woolly. I find this account from the IEP somewhat clearer;

'[The modal scope fallacy (MSF)] is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the then-part of the conditional when it more properly applies to the entire conditional.'

However, one should note that simply locating a modal conditional in the consequent does not automatically result in the MSF. I came across this example which clearly doesn't:

'If Barack Obama Is President of the United States then he
must be over 35'

I rather suspect that stephenlawrence might be labouring under the misapprehension that simply locating the modal conditional in the consequent results in the MSF.

'I had assumed we'd all be using S5 though.'

A strange assumption. I am not in the least sure what modal system Svartz is using - possibly one of his own invention.

Nor do I think clearbury and stephenlawrence are necessarily aware of S5 - we are all amateurs but I think you have to be something of a philosophical ubernerd to know S5 and I know of only two of those on the thread.

As for myself, being of the Quine-Rorty tendency I'll stick with System K + Axiom M so that leaves you.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

"Not quite."

I think this is a difference of interpretation of motive rather than a disagreement about technical details. As such, I don't think we'll be able to resolve it, unless we email Swartz I suppose.

Now, @(H => S); H; * S is valid, yes? It is just that the @ seems superfluous, I suppose. I interpret this as a sign that the point /wasn't/ to arrive at a necessary conclusion without committing the MSF, rather it was to arrive at the strongest conclusion available, given the premises interpreted from each scenario, and /hence/ avoid the MSF.

Now this doesn't contradict @(H => S); @H => @S; @H; * @S which is a correct and stronger conclusion, it is just that you can't get to @S from the premises of the commonly cited scenarios given their premises, without committing the MSF. The reason is that we don't have @H in those scenarios.

On this: @(H => S); @H => @S; @H; * @S; * S

I agree we need M for this and I suspect S5 is the place to end up really. Is S in the above context a contingent conclusion though? I'm not convinced.

"'If Barack Obama Is President of the United States then he
must be over 35'"

Can I ask, where is this example from? At first glance, at this time in the morning, it seems to commit the MSF but I also think that 'possible' and 'necessary' are ambiguous, and their scopes in natural language can be different according to context and often we end up fighting our intuitions when we look at a modal logic translation. That's my experience anyway. Maybe there is contamination from our understanding of conditional probability, P(A|B) is an idiom in which we think, so /given/ Obama is President, necessarily he is over 35, is quite natural as a conclusion. Wildspeculationsrus.

"A strange assumption."

It's a fair cop guv'.

"Nor do I think clearbury and stephenlawrence are necessarily aware of S5 -"

So it's not the case that it's not possible that they're not aware of it?

"we are all amateurs but I think you have to be something of a philosophical ubernerd to know S5 and I know of only two of those on the thread."

I fear I'm the most amateur of all of us, but I bridle at 'übernerd'!
I mean, as a matter of course you'd look into how possible world semantics suggests that S5 is a good account of necessity before posting in public about the MSF wouldn't you? Ok...fair cop.

"As for myself, being of the Quine-Rorty tendency I'll stick with System K + Axiom M so that leaves you."

Why do I feel like I'm on a raft alone in a sea of fiddly counter-intuitive stuff...

ttfn

Of course, on reflection, 'If Barack Obama Is President of the United States then he must be over 35' can't itself commit the MSF since it is just an example of a natural language form that /gives rise/ to the MSF. You would only commit it if you reasoned to the conclusion that necessarily, he must be over 35.

I'll see how it is later in the morning....

hi psi

'[A] difference of interpretation of motive rather than a disagreement about technical detail'

Not really for me it is about technical detail and I'm not sure that the validity of a logical proof can be a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of rigour.

'Now, @(H => S); H; * S is valid, yes?'
I'm not persuaded it is.

'It is just that the @ seems superfluous, I suppose.'

If it /is/ superfluous then what we actually have is an argument in /non-modal/ propositional logic
H => S; H; * S

' I interpret this as a sign that the point /wasn't/ to arrive at a necessary conclusion without committing the MSF, rather it was to arrive at the strongest conclusion available, given the premises interpreted from each scenario, and /hence/ avoid the MSF.'

Surely, the point is to show the implications of the modal /scope/ fallacy which Swartz correctly points out arises from assuming the /scope/ of the modal operator is restricted to to the consequent

H => @S; H; * @S

The MSF is properly avoided by assigning the /scope/ of the modal operator to the whole conditional. Swartz gets this right in the first term, @(H => S) of his supposed "'correct' form. However, as I pointed out above th valid argument from this term is

@(H => S); @H => @S, @H; * @S

So the second term is @H not H as Swartz has it.

' it is just that you can't get to @S from the premises of the commonly cited scenarios given their premises'

The point is that you /can/. Simply because in an /ordinary/ language sentence the modal operator is embedded in the consequent does not entail that formal prposition derived from it must do so. For example:

'If Paul has two sons then necessarily Paul has more than one son' (1)

Can be read, by making the scope of the modal operator the whole conditional, as:

'Necessarily, if Paul has two sons then Paul has more than one son' (2)

which by axiom K becomes

Necessarily, if Paul has two sons then, necessarily, Paul has more than one son'

So as we both pointed out stephenlawrence argument results from a category error in confusing a statement in ordinary language with one in a formal modal language.

'The reason is that we don't have @H in those scenarios'

This may because the scenarios are based on ordinary language statements not formal modal propositions. One simply can't arbitrarily interpret one as having the particular conditional form that is covenient. The mapping is ambiguous and must be clarified before meaningful a debate can be had.

stephenlawrence tries to impose the H => @S maps on clearbury's ordinary language statement however all clearbury has to do is assert that his intended mapping was to @(H => S).

' I suspect S5 is the place to end up really'

I'm not persuaded; the iteration 'axioms' that lead through S4 to S5 seem litle more than a cosmetic exercise to clean up weird outcomes in system T.

'Is S in the above context a contingent conclusion though? I'm not convinced.'

I find the lack of the @ operator quite convincing.

'Can I ask where this came from?'

I came from a discussion of the modal /scope/ fallacy I came across though it original featured Dubya. I was contrasted with

'If god exists then he must be infallible'

The point being made was that in the Obama example the OL statement maps to the formal modal proposition:

Necessarily, if Barack Obama is POTUS the he is over 35

This is because there is a constitutional rule, that one cannot be POTUS unless one is over 35 so the /scope/ of the modal operator is the whole conditional. Obviously this is not the case when one essays

'Necessarily, if god exists the he must be infallible'

"So it's not the case that it's not possible that they're not aware of it"
Not sure. Since #A = ¬@¬A so yours would become

'so its not the case that that it's not not necessarily not that they're not aware of it'

or possibly not.

"Why do I feel like I'm on a raft alone in a sea of fiddly counter-intuitive stuff"

Fear not you are not alone on a raft populated by delusional 'possible world' enthusiasts desperate to prop up their many modal variants. Of course it may capsize........

Btw, I saw a exhibition of painting by John Squire of the Stone Roses yesterday it wasn't bad.

bsy

Hi Bx4,

"Not really for me it is about technical detail and I'm not sure that the validity of a logical proof can be a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of rigour."

I take that as a given, if we disagree on the technical side then we need to sort that out first. As you said later:

"This may because the scenarios are based on ordinary language statements not formal modal propositions. One simply can't arbitrarily interpret one as having the particular conditional form that is covenient. The mapping is ambiguous and must be clarified before meaningful a debate can be had."

I think it is here, as I said, in the interpretation rather than the technical part that our disagreement lies. We might have to agree to disagree about that though.

let's address the technical side first.

@(H => S); H; * S is valid, it just needs the application of M:

1)@(H => S)
2)@p => p (M)
3) H => S (from 1 & 2)
4) H (premise)
therefore
5) S (conclusion)

"If it /is/ superfluous then what we actually have is an argument in /non-modal/ propositional logic
H => S; H; * S"

I have shown above how to get to that from modal premises, which is the point since we are dealing with the MSF.

"Surely, the point is to show the implications of the modal /scope/ fallacy which Swartz correctly points out arises from assuming the /scope/ of the modal operator is restricted to to the consequent"

I agree with this and your subsequent points until we get to here:
"So the second term is @H not H as Swartz has it."
I think Swartz took a different route to explain the same problem. I think he used the form of argument I gave above (using M) but missed out that step for clarity. So we differ in interpreting what Swartz was intending, not on rigour.

So on the example of Paul's sons, the MSF incorrectly locates the necessity operator with the consequent, we agree there. I think Swartz correctly points out that we can't use @H as a premise because it isn't true. The correct premise is H and all that gets you as a conclusion is S /not/ @S, and that's what Swartz validly argues, although perhaps he should have stated the valid argument in full as I did near the beginning of this post.

"I find the lack of the @ operator quite convincing."
Can a conclusion, S be contingent if @S is a premise? I'm still not convinced.

"Necessarily, if Barack Obama is POTUS the he is over 35"
Yes, from which you cannot conclude that necessarily he is over 35, that's the MSF again.

"Not sure. Since #A = ¬@¬A so yours would become"
I was thinking more of @A = ¬#¬A so ¬@A becomes ¬¬#¬A which I think is what I said.

I'm not going to proof read this, sorry, RL intervenes.

ttfn

hi jank

Presently the SO are doing the Festival combined with a bit of a la recherche du temps perdu. Saw an exhibition of paintings by John Squire late of the Stone Roses.

Windsurfing:Only three in Finland. Surprising given the excess of large lakes and nearby bits on the Baltic. If I handn't been in motorway avoidance mode I'd have come across the one in Pori, where the windsurfing champioships are held, and small(ish) children make a better fist of it than I would:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjCN328hMdk

Anyhow the school in Hamburg does courses on a local lake, which strikes me as v. dull but they also do a week long course on the island on the Baltic island of Fehmarn. They also teach kitesurfing which I quite fancy.

Chavs International: I haven't been to coastal spain since my Wanderjahren which were before chavs wnt 'furrin'. Ibiza was the unspoilt haunt of the natives and a few expat artists.

My current picture is formed wholly from reportage by Pravda-in-the-Wen of the 'Eurozone crisis' which shows depressed Spaniards haunting a Ballardesque landscape of half finished hotels and dead cranes.

Probably schadenfreude on their part given the Poundzone crisis.....


Schedule: I remember the days......and not too fondly.

Aqualandia: I'm thinking of declaring a Baffy alert.

Mr T.: Perhaps he was also sanctioned ...... I accidentally came across hin on a thread about Masons who are apparently are not theists, despite being required to declare a belief in a supreme because a number of christian sets disapprove.....

o Fittinly on that note I'm off to view an exihibition of surrealist paintings......

bsy

hey Bored,


hope the festival is fun, what's your find so far?


down here it's been full on since we got back. BH's laptop died, our main pc died, leak in the attic, shite weather every single day....

so to get through this we treated ourselves to an iMac. finally back to Apple and their superior mode of computing (strains of Beta vs VHS....?). problem still is that all my admin from the last 6 months is on the mothership....DOH!! i back up the hard drive every 6 months normally and was just about to when......it was too late.

nevermind, a techy bloke has it in his workshop so at least i'll get the data back. the pc itself is likely to remain like an IKEA computer though....


windsurfing; probably the best place to learn is on a lake. seriously. it's hard enough to get to grips with rig/feet/body/head/wind/sail/board without the "gift" of wave and swell.....but i do hope you get to have a go. thanks for the clip btw, if that is on a lake then those waves are plenty big!


Baffy Alert; cheeky monkey! you would not be so bold i'm sure standing at the top of Aqualandia's Kamikazi waterslide.....


Mr T; yep possibly he was taken to one side so to speak and told to grow a pair, but we'll never know i guess.

DIIC; i vaguely remember you would be able to receive a mail drop around this time. address still the same as last time? (though that address is currently on the mothership so it may be till next week that i get access.....)


hoi!!

hi jank

Sorry to hear about the multiple computer immersions. The SO is something of a fan of the AppleMac and has frequently replaced it being something of a gadget fashionista. I am rarely allowed access as I am deemed overly calvalier in my treatment of computers.

I oce had an old Apple IIe

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9Vg8oZwIROs/Sot1zbq1lPI/AAAAAAAAAQA/brZM8tHlUtM/s400/Apple-IIe-2.jpg

(my other computer was a DEC PDP-11/45)

VHS vs Betamax: I cant really comment. I haven't really used Bloatware Inc.'s offerings for any serious purpose since since W98. Colour me Open Systems.

Data loss: I use data backup in the cloud. This is on an academic server but I think it can be had free from some ISPs like BT (though that maybe only stuff on Bloatware). The SO uses something called Backblaze which cost under fiver a month.

Festival: Should be plural, Curently there is the OfiicialFestival, The Fringe, The Arts Festival, The Book Festival, The Science Festival, The Film Festival, The TV Festivalthe Jazz and Blues Festival.

Given that the Fringe alone runs to around 1800 shows there is clearly a un embarass de richesse which unless properly controlled makes you develop the glittering eyes and fixity of gaze of an ancient mariner or Bambi (who is apparently a wee bit teary about the dead of Iraq).

The only way to get round this is to apply liberal does of cake (which may account for the current stream of consciousness) and Proustian flights fron the city. This included a few ill advised trips on the Death Bike (restored but never ridden by my son-in-law the Jeremy the Timid Clarkson impersonator) of which Hunter S. Thompson was such a fan. I have also taken to declaring Festival Free Days (FFDs) where I amble about in the manner of an OAP sometimes sporting the military surplus Sov-era ushanka That Yevgeni of the Steel Teeth sent me.

I had taken this to be repro as it is false fur but apparently real fur ushankas were only worn by the Soviet Navy. Not many people know that but you are now one who does.

Consistent with Y's rather odd sense of humour the hat does not bear the badge of the First Leningrad Tank Regiment or somesuch as I had originally assumed but is KGB.

I am quite glad that Y eventually told me this as I might have sported it on a planned winter visit to Berlin and had a bit of a Joseph Cotten experience with any last relics of the Gehlen Organisation that might still hanging about.....

Anyhow, the highlights so far:

Exibitions: 'Impressionist Gardens', the Dadaist and Surrealist 'Another World' which includes Duchamp's Fountain. Atsuo Okamoto's 'Faraway Mountain' stone sculptures, 'Nefertiti' paintings by ex-Stone Roses John Squire, 'Flow Patterns' photographs by john Reiach. Oddest venue was a photographic exhibition by the Edinburgh 283 Group in the Neo-gothic horror that is the Scott Monument:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Schottland-Edinburgh-Sir_Walter_Scott_Monument.JPG

Drama, comedy and such: 'Hit me! Life and times of Ian Dury' (a must see), 'Honest' a monologue by D C Moore about a man who is addicted to telling the truth, John McGuinness's 'Free Charlie Party!', Lewis Shaffer's 'Free Until Famous', Tony Hadoke's standup ''I know my BBC' and 'Moth's ate my Dr Who Scarf', 'Ballad of Backbone Joe - a 'whisky-soaked tale of murder and deceit' by Suitcase Royale, Tom Binns dead panning as a fake psychic in 'Touching the Dead' and last but not least Chris Addison's show.

Dance : Ricardo Garcia's A Compas Flamenco, Paco Pena's Flamenco Dance Company, 'Maria de Buenos Aires' an somewhat weird 'tango 'opera', Be Dom a Portuguese Drum Group, 'Rhythms with Soul- Michal Vargas, the Brazilian dance 'Gruppo Corpo' and Zambezi Express.

Music: Little Feat (showing my age), Sleepy Sun (It's a West Coast thing), Kronos Quartet, Wadaiko Ensemble Tokara -brilliant tenko drum group, John Etheridge's 'Sweet Chorus', Ars Nova Copenhagen/Paul Hiller, Alex Yellowlees, Antonio Forcione (again), Camerata Ritmata, Capercaillie (its a Gàidhealtachd thing) and the 9 hour Rock and Roll Circus featuring Toxic Federation, Aziz Ibrahim's (Stone Roses) new band AZIZ, folk pop star Roxanne Emery, The Asps, The Laymanites, The Stagger Rats, Epic 26, The OK Social Club and Pose Victorious
Aasolutely none of whom I had heard of before except for Azis Ibrahim but which was great

DIIC/1: Offer Much appreciated but no hurry. The 'Drop' like many natives flees Edinburgh at this time but should return in about ten days. Only a few more days then the SO departs for her 'long vac' holiday to stay in Nu Yoik ( a city she loves and I mostly loath) with friends. I in the meantime will solo Das Boot back home and then muck about in the new kayak of our local beach. I'll be there for another month so just let me know when you are sending it. Btw what happened with the reformed DIICII?

Windsurfing: Your advice sounds eminently sensible so of course I shall disregard it completely.

Baffyism: I had no idea what a Kamikaz ewaterslide was so I looked it up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/AddThread?inreplyto=100032904

(click Replay)
and noticed that the terminal velocity is remarkably low. Definitely EOB. However there is still hope.

Mr. T: He popped up on a thread that psi and I were involved and was his usual charming self and got sanctioned. So it goes.

bsy

morning Bored,

just saw you cross into the Neverland that is Genesis....welcome!!

am juggling a ton of different tasks right now; fix leaking garage roof, laundry, getting PA etc for our annual street party (tomorrow), general Butler duties.....

so a more considered response to your last post here will need to wait a day or so.

btw loved your stream of unfettered consciousness!! lots of LOL moments. every time i've started those myself i chicken out......


tot straks!

doh! mean Hawkins thread not Genesis.....


soz