"Family Fortunes" Quiz Answers

I dislike posting purely copied material, especially when it is unattributable, but I heard about this list, and it is every bit as wonderful as I'd hoped from its description. 
A long-running TV quiz show in the UK (recently revived) is Family Fortunes, and these are some answers given by contestants over the years. You can also find videos of some of these priceless moments, which confirm their authenticity. 
I was honestly crying at some of them - enjoy.


Q: Name something you take to the beach      A: Turkey sandwiches

Q. Name something a blind person might use      A: A sword

Q. Name a song with moon in the title      A: Blue Suede Moon

Q. Name a bird with a long neck      A: Naomi Campbell

Q. Name an occupation where you need a torch      A: A burglar

Q. Name a famous brother and sister      A: Bonnie & Clyde

Q. Name a dangerous race      A: The Arabs

Q. Name an item of clothing worn by the Three Musketeers      A: A horse

Q. Name something that floats in the bath      A: Water

Q. Name something you wear on the beach      A: A deckchair

Q. Name a famous royal      A: Mail

Q. Name a number you have to memorise      A: 7     (My absolute favourite.)

Q. Name something in the garden that’s green      A: Shed

Q. Name something that flies but doesn’t have an engine      A: A bicycle with wings

Q. Name something you might be allergic to      A: Skiing

Q. Name a famous bridge      A: The bridge over troubled waters

Q. Name something a cat does      A: Goes to the toilet

Q. Name something you do in the bathroom      A: Decorate

Q. Name an animal you might see at the zoo      A: A dog

Q. Name something associated with the police      A:Pigs

Q. Name a sign of the zodiac      A: April

Q. Name something slippery      A: A conman

Q. Name a way of cooking fish      A: Cod

Q. Name a food that can be brown or white      A: Potato

Q. Name a jacket potato topping      A: Jam

Q. Name a famous Scotsman      A: Jock

Q. Name something with a hole in it      A: Window

Q. Name a non-living object with legs      A: Plant       (A close second.)

Q. Name a domestic animal      A: Leopard

Q. Name a part of the body beginning with ‘N’      A: Knee

Q. Name something you open other than a door      A: Your bowels

Patriotism, or "Caaarn Straya!" (1)

I've never considered myself to be truly patriotic, but every now and then I feel a surge of national pride. Never during sporting events like the World Cup (which sort of football is that again?) or the Olympics, but usually in the context of a shared characteristic with other Australians.

The following list was one of the very very few email circulars to make it through my filters, but it really struck a chord, so I thought I'd pass it on with annotations to help those for whom some of the references are particularly obscure. I hope that few Australian readers will need these explanations, but it might help them to explain some of their own characteristics to others. Unfortunately I can't give due credit for the list, because it was as anonymous as all such compilations, and is doubtless the work of many people along the way. To each of them I say "Thenk smite!"

[UPDATE 26 January 2012, appropriately enough: the original list is by Aussie journalist and author Richard Glover, and can be found on his website, where he encourages readers to share it. Apologies to him for not knowing this before, and for making small amendments and additions to his already comprehensive work!]

You know you're Australian if ...

* You believe that something looking like cooked-down axle grease makes a fantastic spread. You've squeezed it through Vita Wheats to make little Vegemite worms ...
and you can sing the song.
[In fact I bet you sang along to that video, didn't you. Just like I did.]

* You believe that stubbies can be either drunk or worn.

* You think Woolloomooloo, Mooloolaba, Koolyanobbing, and Goonoo Goonoo are perfectly reasonable names for places.

* Speaking of place names, you can recognise most of the towns in the original version of "I've Been Everywhere Man".

* You're secretly proud of our killer wildlife.

* You understand that "Wagga Wagga" can be abbreviated to "Wagga", but "Woy Woy" could never be called "Woy", and "Bong Bong" can't be "Bong". That would just be silly.

* You believe all famous Kiwis are actually Australian, unless they stuff up, at which point they become Kiwis again.

* Beetroot with your hamburger ... Of course.

* You know that certain words must, by law, be shouted by the whole audience during any rendition of "Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again" and "Living Next Door to Alice".

* You're liable to burst out laughing whenever you hear of Americans "rooting" for something.

* You can translate: "Dazza and Blue went with Wozza to see Acca Dacca."


* You have at some time worn ugg boots outside the house.

* You understand that the phrase "women wearing black thongs" is less alluring than it sounds.

* You know how to pronounce "Mel-bun" properly.

* You're less likely to get caught making a bong with your garden hose than for using it illegally to water the garden.

* You believe it makes perfect sense for a nation to decorate its highways with large fibreglass fruit, penguins, prawns and sheep.

* You believe that most of the really important discoveries in the world were made by an Australian but then sold off to the Yanks for a pittance.

* You believe that the more you shorten someone's name the more you like them.

* You say "no worries" quite often, whether you realise it or not, and you understand what "no wuckers" means (without having to click on that link).





* And you have drunk your tea/coffee/Milo through a Tim Tam. Ohhh yesss.


To be continued ...

Anonymousey

There have always been people who feel that the hard-won right to Freedom of Speech entitles them to be as insulting or hurtful towards others as they like. Sometimes they are sufficiently proud of their "candour" that they are happy for their identities to be known, but the more craven or cautious among them have always hidden behind anonymity.

In previous times, the anonymous "poison pen" letter was used to attack, frighten or villify someone, and was usually rude, insulting, or downright malicious about a person's life or character.
In the case of my own thoughts and opinions as expressed in this blog, one of the posts which has attracted the strongest response (as I expected it would) is "DMOZ Editor Corruption Shock". However, that post is now almost two years old, and has been updated twice since then (in August 2009 and July 2010), but I continue to receive nasty comments on the original post, obviously by people who have not noticed that it is now rather dated.

I do not censor sensible comments, even if I disagree with their content, or even if the writer wishes to hide his/her identity. But in my view (and it is my blog, after all) I don't see any value to anyone in publishing anonymous rants which are usually pointless and frequently illiterate.

Of course I have experienced my share of hurtful criticism in several areas of my life, some of which was undoubtedly justified, but I absolutely refuse to take seriously the accusations and criticisms of

• those who abuse a position of authority to belittle people "beneath" them
• bullies of any type 
• those who are purely self-interested (ie with their own unacknowledged and unrelated agenda)
• those who have shown themselves to be deceitful or manipulative
• ... and certainly those who send anonymous "hate mail" or blind criticism  

So, Mr/Ms "Anonymous", if you wish me to take note of your emails or publish your comments, please ensure they indicate some thought on your part, are relevant to the issue in question, contain at least one original opinion or observation, and are written with some semblance of grammar and syntax, rather than being just a string of miss-spelled invective.
If you can't manage that, save yourself the time.

Deconstructive Criticism

To my disappointment, the title is not a witty neologism, but a long-standing (if terminally obscure) literary term. I tried hard to understand the definition, really I did, but in the end I still prefer my own:

"Deconstructive criticism is the opposite of constructive criticism"

"But surely the opposite is 'unconstructive' or even 'non-constructive'?", you might say.
No. In my mind those are terms for criticism which does nothing at all, neither helpful nor damaging:

For me, construction means putting things together, so the opposite should be "deconstruction", or taking things apart. Not destruction, you understand, which means destroying, but more the dismantling of something which has been built.

Now that we have my definitions sorted out, how does this apply to criticism? Some examples might help.

Example 1
Constructive criticism: "You have obviously worked hard on this, but I notice a few things which could be improved. Perhaps we can work on them together?"
Unconstructive criticism: "I don't like the way you've done this."
Destructive criticism: "What a mess you've made, as usual."

Deconstructive criticism: "You've spent way too much time on this, and you still haven't got it right."

Example 2
Constructive criticism: "I know how much you like that colour, but I'm not sure it's the best choice this time."

Unconstructive criticism: "I don't like that colour at all."

Destructive criticism: "You have never had any colour sense."

Deconstructive criticism: "What on earth makes you think that colour combination works?"

Example 3
Constructive criticism: "I appreciate your point of view, but I see things differently. Can we talk about it some more?"

Unconstructive criticism: "I totally disagree."

Destructive criticism: "You always get things wrong."

Deconstructive criticism: "Where on earth did you get that idea? It's completely ridiculous."

Example 4
Constructive criticism: "You have a wonderful way with words, but I think your point might be lost in the detailed explanation you provide."

Unconstructive criticism: "I have absolutely no idea what you mean."

Destructive criticism: "You always bore everyone to death."

Deconstructive criticism: "Why can't you just use simple language instead of this rubbish?"

Example 5
Constructive criticism: "You devote so much time and effort to this company/project/organisation, but perhaps it might be time to take a step back and re-assess priorities?"

Unconstructive criticism: "Nobody should spend as much time as you do on this."

Destructive criticism: "You are not nearly as useful as you seem to think you are.

Deconstructive criticism: "Most of what you've done is completely unnecessary, and the rest has to be checked and corrected anyway."

I hope you can get a sense of the demoralising effect of deconstructive criticism, which is a more personal attack on your own values and abilities, and therefore harder to ignore, than the obvious generalisations of the other two negative responses.
In other words, deconstructive criticism is nothing more than a deliberate insult, and like all insults says more about the person delivering it than the one to whom it is addressed.  Criticism is an essential component of growth and development, but only if it is constructive. Accept no substitutes! 

A Few Aphorisms

Nothing original today, and nothing cynical or world-weary either, for a change.
Instead, here are some quotations which mean a lot to me, and which might speak to you too.

The first one is as close as I will ever get to having my own motto.
I discovered it as an embroidered sampler in an historic cottage, with the name and date "Ann Hewson 1780". I was quite young at the time, but even so I felt that it perfectly mirrored my own outlook on life, so I copied the words and laboriously embroidered my own sampler, serendipitously finishing it exactly 200 years after Ann signed hers.
It still resonates with me all these years later ...

Learn by the bee from each event to find
Some hint of use or profit to your mind.
Nothing so small but you may draw from thence
Improvement for your virtue or your sense.

The next one is a lot less ponderous, but a very useful reminder that our lives are neither as important nor as serious as we may think. It's from Jerry Seinfeld.

Life is truly a ride. We're all strapped in and no-one can stop it. ...
Sometimes you put your arms up and scream, sometimes you just hang on ...
I think the most you can hope for at the end of your life
is that your hair's messed, you're out of breath, and you didn't throw up.

Life is full of uncertainty, and sometimes the number of necessary decisions seems overwhelming. Lewis Carroll's eternally untroubled Cheshire cat has the answer.

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

It's unashamedly sentimental, but this quote from an American author named Agnes Sligh Turnbull never fails to bring a lump to my throat, and I'm sure it will do the same to anyone who has loved and lost a dog. (Vale Tess, Kimba, Mtani, Zu, Harry, Taka and all the similarly precious memories of my friends.)

Dogs' lives are too short. Their only fault, really.

Then, of course, there was Douglas Adams. Almost everything he said or wrote makes me respond "Yes!", so it is impossible to choose my favourite from thousands of insightful comments. Fortunately, there are many sites (such as this one) which share his witty wisdom, so for those who are unfamiliar with his view of the world, I'll close with this particularly pithy example.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry
and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

ODP/DMOZ: Down the Rabbit-Hole

The title refers to the first chapter of "Alice in Wonderland", because for many people the Open Directory Project seems to be an illogical, upside-down world, full of confusing inconsistencies and bewildering rules.

Sometimes this is due to a simple misunderstanding of the nature of the directory itself, but unfortunately some of the difficulty is due to more fundamental problems.

The concept of DMOZ is very simple: an international community of volunteers finds and sorts worthwhile sites into an organised collection which is made freely available to everyone, so that web surfers can more easily find what they are looking for.

Unfortunately, that single paragraph mentions most of the problems.

1. "Community of volunteers"

I have written at length on the subject of attracting more people to help build the directory, and I have even provided a detailed guide to completing a successful application. My own contributions as a volunteer have continued to mount up since I recorded them here 2 years ago, and I take pride in having added almost 30,000 sites to the directory. As a meta editor, I've accepted over 340 new editors and restored the accounts of more than 1200 others who wished to return to editing after some time away.

Such contributions are by no means unique or even noteworthy, but it is sad that dedicated volunteers receive almost no encouragement or support from directory management, who nevertheless feel they are entitled to be respected, solely as a result of their elevated position, even if their own contributions are negligible.

Unfortunately, I am once again suffering the same relentlessly negative attention from "above" to which I have previously referred, but I will say no more about that, because I do not want to hear the famous cry of Alice in Wonderland's Red Queen!

2. "Finds"

Volunteer editors look for sites wherever they can, both on the internet and in the "real world". One place they may choose to look is the pool of websites suggested by other people, but this is seldom a fruitful source.

Hence the most commonly heard question about the directory: "I suggested my site to DMOZ/ODP ages ago, so why isn't it listed yet?".

3. "Worthwhile sites"

The criteria for inclusion are available for everyone to read, but that doesn't stop many webmasters from trying to get completely worthless sites into the directory. Dealing with the endless suggestions from spammers wastes the time of volunteers who could otherwise be building the directory with useful sites.

4. "Freely available"

There is never any charge for using the directory (despite idiotic "corruption" rumours).

AOL supplies the technology involved in keeping it running, but resources are naturally limited for something which makes no money, so any necessary repairs, maintenance or improvements happen very slowly indeed, if at all. For example, the AOL Server Crash of late 2006 took the directory entirely off-line for two months. Much of the lost data was never recovered, and many of the resulting bugs are still there three years later.

This is extremely frustrating for the volunteers who work on the directory, but there is nothing they can do except wait for the long-promised DMOZ 2.0.

5. "Web surfers"

Unfortunately many webmasters and marketing agents want to believe that DMOZ is a free listing service to assist with site promotion, but it isn't, and never has been. The directory exists simply to help internet users find information, answers, products, services, ideas, or anything else they wish.

If there is such a thing as an "average" web surfer, that's who the volunteer editors are working for. :-)

Leadership, Loutism or Blatant Bullying?

Leadership: inspiring others in "the accomplishment of a common task"

Loutism: acting like a lout - "awkward, stupid, and boorish"

Bullying: being "habitually overbearing and intimidating"

It is a short step from loutism to bullying, because both groups have no respect at all for others, and a very high sense of their own importance. The lout acts in a selfish, non-personal way (like yelling obscenities or spraying graffiti), but I have a particular disdain for people who feel the need to boost their self-image through the repeated use of threats and intimidation against other individuals.

However, when such tactics are used by those already in positions of authority it is not only unacceptable but a complete misuse of their position, and brings the whole management/leadership process into disrepute.

• Surely the fact that they have "power" over others would be enough to satisfy their need to feel more important and influential? Why on earth would they need to threaten and belittle their subordinates?
• Their role is to manage, lead, direct, encourage, or otherwise exert their authority for the benefit of the organisation or community.
• If there is a need for discipline, they are expected to carry this out in a firm but respectful manner, and only in the interests of the community or organisation as a whole.
• Personal piques and prejudices are completely unacceptable reasons for unfair treatment of those "below" them.

Such behaviour is seen everywhere of course, with petty-minded, disturbed or ignorant people being ill-advisedly placed in positions of authority, where lack of supervision and monitoring allows them to indulge their greed for power over others. Prisons, detention centres, police forces, armies, schools, business corporations, nursing homes ... the scope for such people is depressingly wide.

All civilised people deplore such behaviour, of course, but most of us see it every day without doing anything about it. Sometimes a bullying culture is so ingrained that it is seen as normal, or perhaps even justified, as in the case of prisons, the army or even big business. It is much harder to excuse the situation in schools, hospitals, and other organisations where the primary goal is not punishment, discipline or profit.

In such situations we all have a responsibility to stand up to bullies and those who similarly misuse their authority. If someone stands alone they are likely to be harassed, ridiculed, or even dismissed from the organisation. Not an appealing prospect for even the bravest souls. But if everyone makes it clear that those in charge are expected to behave in a fair and respectful manner, without resorting to personal attacks, threats and intimidation, then there is a far better chance that message will get through.

Remember: bullies are simply insecure cowards who lack the talents and personality to succeed on their own, and therefore have to put others down in order to raise themselves up.

... like a fish needs a bicycle.

The title refers of course to the well-worn phrase (incorrectly attributed to Gloria Steinem) that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." However, my use of it here is prompted not by feminist irony but by nostalgia.
I have recently returned from a month spent house-sitting for friends on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, which also happens to be where I grew up. During that month I re-discovered my love of a daily swim in the sea, and also the appeal of being able to cycle in safety on dedicated paths. (See the fish/bicycle connection? Yes, it's a bit tenuous I admit, but at least I explained it fairly early on so you didn't have to read too far.)

Since I left the coast at the age of 15, I've always lived at least an hour's drive from the beach, sometimes many more, and although I've been back to that area almost every year, it has never been for more than a few days at a time, so this was a very different experience.

It was a completely forgotten delight to be able to "pop down to the beach for a quick dip" at least twice every day, without the tiresome logistics involved in having to drive all the way across the city as I do here in WA.
Several times a week I combined the two pleasures by cycling to the beach (a pleasantly flat 10km), enjoying the surf for an hour or so, and then cycling home again.

And provided I was early enough to beat the holiday-makers, here's what I found each morning - what a treat!

In fact, I was totally unprepared for the overwhelming sensation that I was back where I belonged, and the famous poem by John Masefield keeps haunting me:

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face, and a grey dawn breaking.

I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull's way and the whale's way, where the wind's like a whetted knife;
And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,
And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick's over.

I'm certainly not planning to set sail anywhere, but I do think it's time I made my home by the sea again.

"A Gate by Any Other Name ..."

There's nothing new under the sun, apparently.

As a result of a news item today about the explosive-packed underwear of the would-be terrorist on the Christmas Day flight, I wondered how long it will be before someone comes up with a Silly Season name for the inevitable investigation into how he managed to avoid detection at two major airports.

Of course a front-runner would be "Undiegate", but I was disappointed to find that it's already been taken, back in 1997, when a New Zealand MP was publicly humiliated for spending $89 of taxpayer's money on a pair of boxer shorts for himself.

My next brainwave was "Budgiegate", in deference to the grand Australian tradition of referring to tight men's underpants as "budgiesmugglers".

But that's already been used as well, darn it, when a pet bird was smuggled into a high security prison in Ireland in 2007.

Looking at the picture of the terrorist underpants, it is easy to imagine the very localised effects of even a tiny explosion, so this opens up a new line of thought, such as "Knackergate" or "Castragate".

Perhaps we should simply return to the "Gate" which started this whole rather derivative naming trend. So this scandal could be "Watergate II", because of the obvious connection between the two, er, "Dicks".

Canberra 1: Cant

Last week I was in our national capital for a 2-day "symposium". I've been to many thousands of seminars, lectures, tutorials, meetings and presentations; and even a couple of conferences, but I've never knowingly attended a symposium, so I was a little curious about what it would be.

Well now I know.

It's a euphemism for "sitting around a long table in a small room listening to other people talk and use PowerPoint until you lose the will to live".

There's a lot of that sort of cant in Canberra: using fancy words to describe something completely mundane. Politicians do it as easily as breathing, and it seems to have infected everyone in the city.

One day I walked for 3 blocks behind a man with a very snazzy tracksuit, plenty of hair "product" (another stupid word), and a mobile phone clamped to his ear. Without breaking stride, he maintained a steady stream of the most impressive twaddle, reminiscent of "Yes Prime Minister" and every political satire since then. But this guy had no script nor team of writers, so it is very disappointing that the only phrase I was able to memorise was

"We'll have to consolidate the neo-liberal economic platform before we rationalise our own objectivity parameters."

Of course it could have been the other way around.

An equally adept exponent of cant was our "speaker" for one afternoon session, although "droner" would fit just as well. In order to avoid one of those ghastly head jerks or involuntary snuffly grunts which are such an embarrassing giveaway of the secret snoozer, I kept track of the nonsensical jargon and euphemisms in the presentation. Fotunately these came along pretty often, so it was enough to keep me awake. Here are my favourites:

"adverse outcome assessment analysis"

"suboptimal problem resolution strategies"

"diagnostic overshadowing"

"mapping the behaviour curve to generate intervention plans"

and the truly inspired

"the success of positive behaviour support is judged by the durability, social validity and generalisability of the outcome."

Gen Y - Not As Bad As You Might Think

I realise that the title is a fine example of "damning with faint praise", but a lot of negative things are written about this demographic, some of them no doubt true. However, I spend quite a lot of my time in their company, so I thought I'd make a few more positive observations.

There is a typically dubious Wikipedia article on this cohort, which is nevertheless completely appropriate, as they are overwhelmingly an online generation, turning to Wikipedia the way their forebears might have used bound versions of the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica or the more folksy World Book.

I spend a lot of my own time online, as previously described in this blog, and many of the friends I have made are in this age group. That's the first thing I want to say about the representative Gen Yers I have met:

1. They are friendly and confident

I have had long and entertaining conversations with many of these online friends, despite the age difference, and have found them to be completely comfortable discussing all sorts of issues and topics.

They are often accused of being self-centred, but in fact they seem to be more willing to contribute to volunteer projects than the time/money conscious Generation X, so I am happy to accord them another quality:

2. They are enthusiastic volunteers.

Another criticism levelled at Gen Y is that they are too "peer limited", using all their electronic communication platforms to remain constantly connected to each other, excluding the rest of the world. I find this particularly ridiculous, because what generation has not done this, by whatever means they had?

For children and teens of the 60's and 70's (Baby Boomers), it was language and music that ensured their cohesion and kept their parents' generation on the outside. Subsequently, it was the idealisms and ambitions of Gen X. In earlier times it was clothes, or dance, or any number of other tactics to delineate Us and Them. Plus ça change. :-)

In my own experience, Gen Y are refreshingly willing to include others into their group. I see this every week at the University where I teach graduate medical students. Most of them are in their 20's, but those in their 30's and 40's are accepted just as easily, without the suspicion and awkwardness with which many Gen Xers used to regard their older colleagues. So ...

3. They are inclusive and non-judgemental.

To be sure, these young people often lack respect, behave irresponsibly, and sometimes fail to consider the needs and opinions of other people. But haven't we all behaved like that at some stage? At least the relentless connectivity of Generation Y ensures that they are exposed to an infinite number of opinions, beliefs, prejudices and passions, rather than hearing only those of their friends and families.

4. They have a very wide frame of reference.

Finally, their internet-based life ensures they remain constantly updated on all current issues (major and minor), which is more than can be said for those who rely only on the evening news or a chat with their neighbour to keep them informed of international and local events. Whether or not they choose to act on the information is another matter, of course, but at least

5. they are well-informed on a wide range of issues.

So yes, I like them, and not just because they actually talk to me. ;-)

There Are None So Blind

... as those with their heads stuck up their ...

No, sorry, that's a bit coarse, isn't it. Better stick to the original, whatever it is:

"Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" ... agrees that this saying has its roots in the Bible, specifically Jer. 5:21 (King James version): "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not"

... The proverb has been traced back in English to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse quoted (above)."

Of course we are spoiled for choice, when it comes to people who are determined to ignore the obvious for their own benefit:

politicians

bureaucrats

fanaticists

cultists

alt-med charlatans

talentless "celebrities"

... the list is depressingly long.

Today, however, I wish to comment on a very specific example of blinkered vision - that of people who seek to justify their own positions by assuming that everyone must want to be like them, and therefore deserves their pity or scorn, for "failing" to achieve that goal.

Such blind arrogance is counter-intuitive, of course. Those who do inspire genuine admiration and respect are never the sort of people to demand it, or to treat others as failures or, worse, as rather pathetic wannabes.

An Illustrative Case

(Details are vague for the usual reasons, but if you think that the subject

is not unrelated to a recent post of mine, I can't help that.)

Let's say someone with a rather mundane job and limited qualifications happens to be in the right place at the right time, and knows the right people. He might suddenly find himself in a powerful position for which he knows he is manifestly under-qualified, so he sensibly finds some talented assistants, maintaining his position due to the simple fact that he is the only one getting paid, which entitles him to exercise his authority in a way that would have been unworkable in a "real" job.

After a few years, however, he starts to lose interest in the project, so he creates a new management level below his own, so that his trusted assistants can take over most of his former role. However, in order to keep his salary and his position at the top, he ensures that this new level is not autonomous, and can be overruled at any time by himself.

Consequently, these new "managers" quickly discover that their initial pride at being promoted above their peers turns to dissatisfaction and frustration, so they now feel obliged to justify their own positions, until eventually they lose interest as well, and yet more have to be chosen to fill the gaps left behind. (An eerily similar situation is described in my Fairy Tale post, but please don't jump to any conclusions, will you.)

And so the cascade of condescension continues, because there is nothing that makes some people feel more important than identifying someone less important than themselves, and preferably reminding them of it as often as possible.

However, if they stubbornly refuse to believe in their inferiority, or fail to show you the respect you know you deserve, there are number of options available:

• Start by idiculing them in public, highlighting their pathetic inability to achieve what must surely be their heart's desire - ie to be like you.
• Threaten to reduce their admittedly trivial responsibilities even further. Because you can.
• Persuade their colleagues that they suffer from delusions of grandeur. (Pot? Kettle?)
• Randomly exert authority in unexpected ways, such as reversing their decisions and publicly criticising their actions.
• Private harassment works well too, if the public campaign doesn't put them in their place.

Fortunately, most people can easily see this self-aggrandizement for what it is - a short-sighted effort to increase a sense of importance which was completely unjustified in the first place.

Dogophiliacs

A quick explanation is probably needed, in view of the disturbed people who might arrive here in some confusion after injudicious Googling.

In fact the word in the title is not a neologism, and can be found on other sites, but I am the first person I know to use it, so I take the blame for shamelessly combining a Greek suffix with an Old English root word to describe people strongly attracted to dogs. (In the most innocent way of course, and if any fetishists have read this far, please move along. There is absolutely nothing for you here.)

In my mind, dogophiliacs are slightly different from doglovers, in that many people claim to love dogs, but they often mean only their own, or ones similar to their own. Dogophiliacs, on the other hand, are irresistably drawn to dogs of all shapes, sizes and temperaments, although "Elwood", the World's Ugliest Dog 2007 (right), would admittedly be a challenge.

I am a lifelong dogophiliac, and although I can (thank goodness) effortlessly resist all the "doggy stuff" that canny marketeers tempt us with, I cannot pass up any opportunity to greet a dog, especially if it is looking at me in an interested way. I have to admit that both dogs and children frequently cast me funny looks, but I have never been inclined to go and greet children. ;-)

During a recent trip to the UK, where dogophilia is more widespread than anywhere else, I found that it works greatly to the advantage of the solo traveller. Many conversations with complete strangers started with "Do you mind if I say hello to your dog?", and because both the dog and the owner can tell a true dogophiliac from someone just being polite, this greeting is always received very well by both parties. It crosses all social boundaries too, and even the most patrician owner cannot help unbending a little when their pride and joy is suitably fussed over.

But a word of warning to those who might see such behaviour as an easy way to gain someone's trust for dishonest reasons - insincerity is very easily spotted by even the most gormless dog, and you'll be very lucky if your only reprimand is a look of cold disdain.

There's Nowt So Queer As Folk (3)

Last week I was ambling alongside a canal in Gloucestershire when I stopped to watch a swing bridge being hand-cranked open to allow two barges through. Having watched the operator exchange familiar pleasantries with the boatmen, I wandered over to chat to him. Sounding rather like HM the Q, I asked if he enjoyed his job and the people he met. Unfortunately he didn't like his job of 13 years, but "it's all I can do now, of course" (I didn't pry), and agreed that the boat people were generally friendly and easy-going. Correctly identifying me as an Australian (and not from Middlesborough as others have supposed ;-) ), he then asked about my holiday. On hearing that I had been in Scotland for 2 weeks and was now in England for 2 weeks, he nodded politely, but then advised me in no uncertain terms that if I'd come for an extra week I could have gone to Austria, because it was really nice there.
Feeling there was nothing I could offer in defence of this frightful lapse in my travel plans, I agreed sadly that I had probably not given it enough thought, thanked him kindly for his advice, patted his scruffy dogs ("One's a Whippet/Bedlington terrier cross, y'know.") and went on my way.
Fortunately, he waved cheerily at me the following day when I passed again, and the dogs stopped shouting at the boat-bound dogs long enough to give me a quick wag, so I think my poor travel planning had been forgiven.

In the same village I met Peter, walking his two tired and blissfully muddy border collies. Like many elderly men, he had more than enough time to stop for a chat, so we talked about the hot-air balloon race we'd seen passing over the village that morning, and agreed that neither of us would ever be seen in "one of them things".
Talk turned, as usual, to my holiday, and when I explained that I'd been on a walking holiday in Scotland he smiled knowingly and said "I expect it rained all the time, didn't it?". I agreed that we seldom had a bright sunny day in the 2 weeks I was there, at which he nodded triumphantly, explaining that he'd been to Scotland once and it rained the whole day he was there!
"It might just as well have been Cheltenham", he said dismissively.
Indeed.

There's Nowt So Queer As Folk (2)

As explained in the first of this series, this anecdote is one of several collected during a recent UK holiday.

Even when things don't go to plan, there is often an unexpected gem on a holiday.
On one otherwise infuriating day it was the glorious presence of a stereotype on one of the many trains I took. He had a tweedy flat cap, hunched shoulders, a large watch, and a well-thumbed notebook in which he made copious notes every time we passed another train or a shunting yard. On the pretext of losing my balance en route to the toilet, I managed to peer over his shoulder, and sure enough, the pages were covered in squiggly numbers and times. Yes, he was a bonafide "Train Spotter".

But that was almost incidental to his sudden loud assertion that "Actually I prefer to sit on my own, thank you". This was directed at a boarding passenger who attempted to take one of the 3 spare seats around our hero. A spirited discussion then ensued, but Mr Train Spotter was implacable, and the other chap shuffled off down the carriage, muttering loudly about bloody people who think they own the bloody train just because they know the bloody engine number.

I was exchanging fascinated and appreciative grins with a lady across the aisle when the petulant voice rose again, explaining (apropos of nothing)

"I'm retired. And I'm not married, either."

Marvellous stuff.

There's Nowt So Queer As Folk (1)

Travelling alone by foot and public transport has several drawbacks, to be sure - it requires vast amounts of "waiting" time, and always involves interminable steps to negotiate with increasingly weighty baggage. But overall, it is a stimulating way to see another country, and opens up so many opportunities for meeting "the locals".
I am always much more extroverted on holiday, because I am confident that I will never see these people again, so I shed all self-consciousness and launch into many univited conversations. The result is always rewarding, sometimes surprising, and frequently memorable.

I will describe some of the best ones here - one at a time, so they can be savoured. :-)

The train trip from London to Edinburgh is a favourite of mine, but this time it was a little unusual because there was some unexplained problem near York which meant we had a long delay and were then joined by the passengers from two other trains. For the next leg of the journey it was very noisy and crowded, because one group was a bunch of primary school students from some small North Yorkshire town who had been on a field trip to the Viking Museum in York. They were very friendly, excited and chatty. You can imagine!

My "foony accent" amused them enormously, and we all enjoyed the guessing game about where I came from.

"Middlesborough", said one confidently. No, further away, I said.

"Ooooo Scotland!" said another. No, further than that, I said.

Brief silence, then in awed tones one ventured "London????".

I don't think they believed me for a second when I told them the truth, so from now on when anyone asks where I'm from, instead of "Australia" I intend to say "Middlesborough. Can't you tell?" :-D

SNAFU and FUBAR

Yesterday I was telling my graduate medical students about a very unfortunate administrative SNAFU.

When I booked my forthcoming holiday (back in January), it started after this semester finished. I discovered only yesterday that the University had changed the academic calendar since then, and to my great distress I now find I will miss the last 2 weeks of tutorials, which is very unfair for the students, who will have to have a fill-in tutor leading up to the exams.

I was being so apologetic that it took me a while to notice the puzzled faces. It turned out they had no idea what I meant by SNAFU. I then tried them on FUBAR - same incomprehension. What a gap in their knowledge!

So the tutorial on bone cancer was briefly delayed while I explained these extremely useful acronyms. I was pleased to see a couple of them taking careful notes, because they will soon be working in SNAFU-rich public hospitals.

For readers similarly bemused by the terms, I can't do better than point to the Wikipedia article for an explanation. I particularly like this prim comment:

"It is sometimes bowdlerized to "Situation Normal: All Fouled Up" or similar, in circumstances where profanity is discouraged or censored."

Indeed, but the original version is far more descriptive.

The article on FUBAR is shorter but no less instructive, and as usual leads to all sorts of unexpected discoveries, like a very clever parody called The SNAFU Principle, which will ring bells with anyone involved with large organisations, particularly those with a number of different "management" levels. Here are the first and last verses, to give you the idea:

"In the beginning was the plan,

and then the specification;

And the plan was without form,

and the specification was void.

And darkness

was on the faces of the implementors thereof;

And they spake unto their leader,

saying:

“It is a crock of shit,

and smells as of a sewer.”

.

.

.

"And so it was that the general manager rejoiced

and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
“It promoteth growth,
and it is very powerful.”

The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
and joyously exclaimed:
“This powerful new software product
will promote the growth of the company!”

And the President looked upon the product,
and saw that it was very good."

Of course I can't end this post without the obligatory reference to DMOZ/ODP, which fills all the criteria for a fertile SNAFU breeding ground: it has a vast community of volunteer editors doing the actual work on the directory, and a small, largely absent, and determinedly out-of-touch management team. Communication between the two groups is sporadic, and rife with misunderstandings due to the very different priorities involved. Every now and then a brave editor will try to point out some of the more damaging "foul-ups", but such impertinence is poorly received, and no changes ever result, despite a bewildering procession of New Staff Members who arrive with great fanfare, announce all sorts of improvements, and then vanish without a trace.

SNAFU, for sure, but at least it keeps going. I only hope it doesn't decline further into FUBAR.