Skip to main content

Farewell to the Village People

After 13 years of living in a village, with all that implies, we are about to move to somewhere more urban in feel.

It's a move with mixed emotions. I'm going to miss the friendly conversations in the Post Office and the near-impossibility of walking down the street without saying 'hello' to at least one person you know - I'll miss the community. I'm going to miss a house that has become like a comfortable piece of old clothing. And I'll miss the instant country walks.

On the other hand we'll have shops and cafes in walking distance (which would have included Borders until the swines closed it down), a very different atmosphere, new places to walk - and we will be constantly popping back, as we're only 15 minutes drive away.

Because of the move, this blog will be rather intermittent for the next two to three weeks. Bear with me. Normal service will resume again. But for the moment, who's for a rousing chorus of YMCA?
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous25 July 2009 at 15:20

    Moving gives me hives, so I wish you smooth sailing amongst packing boxes, lost underwear [or am I the only who has problems with this?], and kitchen utensils that always seem to migrate to Japan. Living in an urban setting, the village life sounds intoxicating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. cromercrox27 July 2009 at 16:03

    Two questions -

    Might one ask why you are leaving the rural idyll for Babylon?

    Please may I be the biker?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg27 July 2009 at 18:56

    I saw you more as the Indian chief.

    We're leaving for multiple reasons including teenage children, cheaper accommodation and the ability to get everyday essentials (such as pizza) without driving.

    We see at as a sort of transitional house between 'bringing up the family' and 'now what do we do?'

    ReplyDelete
  4. Henry Berry4 August 2009 at 21:02

    I wish you good luck with the move Brian though why you'd want to trade in the British countryside for High Street Britain absolutely defeats me.

    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 2010 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 exp
117 comments
Read more

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
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more