Delbert

Gathering groups need a leader, and a leader needs to provide answers to questions to maintain leadership. And no doubt, answers regarding the sky and everything will be required. Do I have to continue? Indeed, I get them knocking on my door from time-to-time. The last time their opening gambit was: the weirdness of quantum mechanics proves god exists (think they've got me marked for such questions, or something!). My opening riposte was that that's quite interesting, since during the early part of the last century I understand Ludwig Boltzmann was considered irreligious and effectively sent to Coventry for even suggesting things are made of atoms! And at another time during a social occasion, a friend said during conversation: evolution is disproved because dogs can't talk! I thought it prudent at that juncture to offer no reply and simply change to subject.

From what I can understand the human brain evolved - like every other aspect of life - to cope with the situation at the time. The apparent situation at the time was the Earth's orbital excursions occasioning changes in climate - we needed cunning to survive. But reportedly over the last 10,000 years or so with the Earth's orbit being more circular, the suggestion is our brains have shrunk. A couple of links: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/ and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence The suggestion appears to be that although the brain has shrunk intelligence level has remained. But intelligence is an attribute invented by humans to account for what they think they've got. To paraphrase: a self attributed attribute is no attribute. As inferred previously: what creature with so-called intelligence pollutes and poisons not only the very air it breathes, but the very things that provide it sustenance?

And plain stupid. If you doubt that just look around. Everything from polluting - sorry, poisoning - the very air we breathe, to destroying and also poisoning the very things that we rely on for sustenance. We're nothing more than primates. Sorry, simple primates. And by the way, according to research, our brains are (on average) 10% smaller than stone age man's brain.

DrP (sorry quote not working) America has chosen - just get on with it. The Sun came up, birds are singing. If he doesn't want to get kicked out in four years time he needs to do the right thing. And as for the attributes you mention and your clear frustration, from my perspective I've had to endure 13 years with a warmongering lunatic and his psychopathic clunking-fist sidekick - and he was elected three times! Did I vent my spleen? No, I believe in democracy. As previously said: democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but better than all the others.

DrKrettin That's your view. An intolerance of the view of others is perhaps not something to boast about. Perhaps unstable, narcissistic and all that is what they want, so who are you to criticize? Slightly off tack, but I can recall during the London riots some years ago two girls talking, and one commenting: I can't stand stuck-up people.

Frankly, I can't understand what all the fuss is about. The election of Trump was a democratic process involving the view of that organism called: The People. And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people. Doubtless there'll be some making comments about unfairness of the electoral system. But whatever the system, such suggestions will always be from the losers.

EdEarl: "I wish US politicians were this good" (sorry, quoting seems problematic with my browser) As I've said before on this forum: we elect the politicians. The elected politician is only there as a consequence of the view of that living organism formed by the populace. We here in the UK elected three times what I believe some have suggest to be someone who pursued unnecessary war or wars - among other things. In spite of all this, he triumphed in three general elections. It's up to us to ensure we sus out the con artists, charlatans, buffoons, popinjays, Arthur Daleys, tin-pot looney-tunes and umpteen others to numerous to mention.

I don't understand controversy surrounding politicians in general. Can't understand it because in a democracy a politician has to get elected, in other words, it's the people's choice. If this chap in America gets elected, then that's what the people want, and there's certainly no reason for anyone to complain or criticise in any way whatsoever.

"Diesel creates more CO2 per gallon that petrol" Exactly! And with a lower mpg than petrol, it just makes it worse. Which is the opposite all the publicity and the apparent reason for lower taxes!! But I suppose it's the proof of the old axiom: say something loud enough and long enough and people will believe it. P.S. apologies for not using the 'quote' facility, as it doesn't work on my IE 11.

Perhaps it's my odd way of expression, as It's not hybrid or CO2 output I'm taking about, but rather the apparent promotion and encouragement of diesel engine vehicles with tax concessions and the like. To me it's absolute lunacy. The things are dirty, have always been dirty and always will be dirty. And from what I understand, the UK MOT (annual test) simply involves a smoke test for a diesel! I also understand that in contrast to a petrol engine vehicle, the catalytic converter on a diesel doesn't have to be working! And even the DPF can be non-functional as well! What sort of test is that? And as for the higher MPG, my initial comments (#1) quote 37mpg for the newspaper reporter's 1.6 diesel, whereas my 1.6 petrol job does 46mpg! So even all the talk about more miles per gallon is rubbish. Indeed, I can support the above figures, because from what I recall from a selection of vehicles during one of my employments (I kept figures at the time), I can report something similar between diesel and petrol.

Okay, my sarcastic opening remarks triggered no response, but perhaps the news items today (UK) about pollution, diesel powered vehicles in particular, seems to confirm my longstanding view that diesel engines have, and always will be, the most dirty and polluting of all vehicle engine types. Indeed, how anybody ever thought that they were 'green' I've never understood. The only way to make them cleaner is to have such a complex exhaust filter system as to be totally uneconomic, if not next to impossible to manufacture.

Frankly, apart from one or two, for me the TV programs are rubbish. And as regards the adverts, I feel like I want to through a house-brick at the TV. And I understand people and organisations actually pay money to have those adverts on TV!!! And the news programs aren't much better, appearing to consist of two presenters having a relationship, and probably playing footsie under the table - where's that brick?

"Press the button marked "Quote"" Well, I'm lost for words. Anyway, if anybody's interested it's only since I changed to explorer 11. But all this is off topic.

"Did any of them cover the use of the apostrophe?" Can't recall, but they probably did. Anyway, from your question I presume the use of an apostrophe for an abbreviation is contrary to English prose (prog's in place of programs). P.S. since changing to the latest model, quoting or copying appears to be prohibited. So apologies for not being able to use the website's quote function.

I miss the Open University prog's on UK TV.