Skip to main content

Grumpy old moan

I've very kindly been tagged by Emma in what is sometimes referred to in blogland as a meme. Rather than list 31 one word answers to these questions and nominating at least seven others to suffer the same fate, I'm going to explain why I'm not going to do this.

I ought to stress the grumpiness I mention in the title is just how I fear this will come across - I'm not in any sense irritated about being tagged!

Problem one is the 'meme' thing. I hate the word, I hate the concept. Richard Dawkins (usually referred to on Nature Network as He Who Must Not Be Named) came with the idea of a meme as the equivalent of a gene in idea space, something that mutates, grows, spreads by natural selection - but I think it's a flawed concept, typical of the biologists' response to physics envy where they try to explain everything in biological terms. The word gives me the creeps. The concept just doesn't work for me.

Problem two is that these are really electronic chain letters. Back in the old days of paper and pen, chain letters were poisonous things that claimed you would suffer all kinds of ills if you didn't pass them on. They're pyramid selling without the money. On principle I won't participate in anything that even vaguely resembles a chain letter.

So there you are. Yes it's decidedly bah humbug. But what can I say? It's the response these things bring out in me.

Comments

  1. I don't like them much either. They are usually extremely boring to read as well. There is one that has been going round for a while "16 random things about me" - er, not the most thrilling idea, though an imaginative writer can do nice things with it. Another problem with memes is that you get lots of requests to do the same one, even if you have done it! On the plus side, I've discovered one or two blogs I've grown to like via memes - I'd not have discovered them otherwise.
    My policy is that I ignore them unless one particularly happens to catch my interest, in which case I do it but I don't "tag" anyone in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very sensible, Maxine.

    We're not the only ones who don't particularly like them - see Lynn Price of Behler Publications on the same subject: http://behlerblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/tagged-im-sooo-not-it.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope