DesDownunder

Good one Graeme. How about a panache of panthers.

Ug, ug, ug, oog, ug-ug!

hmm, how about an orgy of bonobos?

It's not only - only connect, or bonding with what we have or have not; neither is it just a matter of having, but is related to our being (rather than having). We have replaced what we can be with what we have, or want to have, and the more we have, the more we regard ourselves as worthy. To have or to be, is really the question we are discouraged from asking by our cultures. Even then we might regard the failure to connect as being the failure to recognise that we are really already connected. The free love hippies maintain that we are trees who can move, but our connection to our Earth, our environment is not obvious and so we think of ourselves as separate from the ground we walk upon. We think we are separate because we do not recognise, "we are all one." Om. Seeing ourselves as part of the one is actually quite an old concept recognised in the original proposed motto of the U.S. "E Pluribus Unum" was the motto proposed for the first Great Seal of the United States by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. A latin phrase meaning "One from many." Additionally many philosophies place an emphasis on the oneness of human existence; diverse, different though we may be our bonding does indeed form a union. To finish on a lighter note; heroines might well be lesbian because of the desire to bond, which I guess means that heroes are all gay men, except of course when they are gods.

The cat is just too cute.

I think I can remember my limerick, and that Bruin managed a clever one rhyming pantechnicon. (Sorry I can't remember more Bruin.) Here's what I remember of mine: The difference between a lorry and a truck, Depends on a bit of luck If things halt in a lorry, All you an do is say, "Sorry," But at a truck-stop you might get a *uck. * Please insert the (*)uck of your choice

Arthur C. Clarke lived in Sri Lanka, I believe, and his writing is quite influenced with Eastern philosophy. The problem with the three Abrahamic religions is that they, particularly two of them, threaten to destroy the rest us along with each other. Historically, we do not seem able to set aside our differences and just co-exist, let alone do so peacefully. I'm quite taken with this quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg.

It's difficult not to be a little pessimistic at times. Who could possibly ever have imagined that a couple of prehistoric apes arguing over a water hole in the desert would eventually evolve into a religious war threatening the very existence of their descendants?

Okay, I can do that... I agree with you and Cole. Of course there can be an exceptional exception. I remember a story, not really all that memorable as evidenced by the fact that I can't recall its title, which had a section in it similar to what follows; Omnipotent Narrator: They all gathered outside the café, Everyone was there. Today, they would determine there future hopes and discuss their dreams. Suddenly a huge truck careered into the small crowd killing everyone in this fucking story... -- Sorry folks, just letting off a bit of steam...back to the story, no truck, no deaths. Talk about destroying the suspension of disbelief!

It's, more or less, this kind of argument, I was hoping to allay in the hope of encouraging all of us to become appreciative of the differences, the origin and evolution of our language.

If you don't bite them, they generally don't bite you.

I feel drilled and screwed.

Aussie usage of the English language is concurrent with both U.S. and British influence. Whilst we might understand and even use Americanisms, we tend to use British English definitions as our formal base. I could go on to describe this combination of the three nations, such as we Australians say, "I'll do the washing up," meaning that I'll clean the dishes, but I'm much more interested in the corruptions of English that gain common usage. Such common usage can surprise local communities when a scholar announces so-called 'correct' pronunciation of well known names. Take for instance the name of Othello's wife, Desdemona. For many years as evidenced in old movies as well as the classroom of the fifties the name was pronounced Desda - moan-ah, emphasis on the moan. Today we are told it should be pronounced, Des - dem - ona, with emphasis on the dem. Also the famous Queen of the British Iceni tribe was commonly known as Boa - de - sea - ah, Boadicea. However it is also spelt Boudica and we are told that it should be pronounced as Boo - di - ka. These are merely names and there are many more complex examples that confound not only scholars, but also our own teachers, and I believe that gives us a clue to what went "wrong." But first we have to overcome the idea that the way we speak is the correct or the only way a word, or phrase should be spoken. Take the prefix "anti-". Americans say ant- eye, Aussies and Britains say "ant-ee" or anty. This is the best example of what I believe happened in the home-schooling of American pioneers/pilgrims. Isolated across the prairies of the American plains, parents with only a smattering of grammar and lingual form and usage taught their children to read from their early understanding of vowels. "a, e, i, o, u," as in, a as in cat, e as in met, I as in pin, o as in dog, and u as in *uck. I have watched many people who have only this level of education in reading and writing begin reading from the basis of these vowel sounds; when they really needed to use the more sophisticated vowel sounds like, a as in hay, e as in tree, i as in high, o as in hoe, and u is in you. Then there is the need to understand which syllable should be accented in any word with two or more syllables. Combine the above with the multitude of immigrants from nearly every nation, tribe and with varying dialects and it is not surprising that Americans have formulated their own set of English rules and colloquialisms in speech. In case you haven't understood that I am not attacking American speech, let me add that the Australian accent is also due to an inept laziness, compounded by a total lack of teaching voice production, something that the BBC over-does it, even if I do prefer it to the nasal mumble of Aussies or the drawl of the American Southern states. The real problem however, is with the arrogance that has become endemic in some people because what they hear in the local community has to be correct by virtue of "it's how we have always said that." No it isn't, it's just different, and to pursue an understanding and acceptance of that difference will enrich our understanding of what is fast becoming a love of the diversity of the various way we use a common language, even when we find those differences frustrating.

My experience, and this is entirely anecdotal, is that at least somewhere between 35 - 50% of men have felt, or are attracted to other men. Societal pressure from family, employment, and religion have convinced these men to subjugate their feelings, or to resort to clandestine casual meetings with other men. Denial of their attraction is all too common, and often precipitates violent reactions in the home and the work place. Sufficient work has been done by the psychiatric professionals to indicate that homophobia is, in itself, a mental illness brought on by the denial of one's true sexual orientation. When this denial is combined with religious indoctrination that condemns homosexuality then the resulting psychosis can be very obnoxious and traumatic for all concerned. When we add Kinsey's scale of sexual orientation as well as the fluidity of sexual expression itself, we can perhaps see that there is much work to be done in the acceptance of human sexual relationships and their expression. As Jamessavik (I believe) once said, "Darwin's work is never finished." However, anthropologically, we might also consider that in addition to greed, tribal squabbles over land and water rights, we won't see true peace on the planet whilst we do not accept our attraction; whilst we do not allow ourselves the freedom to physically express our love for each other. Religion of course cannot be permitted to dictate the conditions of that love, but that is another subject of mammoth proportions and problems.

It's not the various dialects of Britain that I have trouble with, it's the telemarketers from the Asian countries that befuddles me. I have found that they terminate the call if I say to them, "You want to do, what, to me?"

Thanks Mike. I'm very interested to see where the story goes. {--} Wow, that was a short story in itself.

Having actually had a brick to my face, courtesy of the local Home Invaders Inc., I understand what you mean with this story. What stunned me most was the song in chapter 3. I didn't know it, so I quickly googled it and the author's choice is spot on. I suggest readers play at least the first verse to match the story's text, but really the entire song and its backing is just so appropriate. Here's the link (below) to the song, but don't play it now, wait till you get to the appropriate place in the text of chapter 3 then pause your reading and listen to the song. Thanks James for the heads up on this, yeah it is grim, but I'm a bit down anyway so as they say, misery loves company.

For me, in Australia, it would have to be an attack on our beloved ABC TV programs, but we don't have to worry as our present federal government seems intent on diminishing the ABC's capacity to fulfil its charter.

An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, would leave the whole world blind and toothless. As for The Imitation Game, I have read some criticising reviews, but I'll wait until I've seen it before I pass judgement. I'd be very surprised if I didn't find something to praise.

I don't object to Coles' use of fonts.

I have been told, in my long lost youth, that conductors have indeed fallen from the conducting platform and that eventually provoked the installation of a guard rail. I have not been impressed with the mechanics of Thielemann's conducting. Good conductors of yesteryear tended to rise up through the European opera houses where they learned to understand and evoke the drama in the music. Today's modern conductor's tend towards a more head rather than heart interpretation, but I have heard some recent younger conductors returning to more emotional renditions. Sadly I can't remember their names. Modern conducting is also influenced by digital recording techniques, but that is a subject in itself; suffice it to say that perfection does not reside with the technicians displacing the art of the recording producers. Carlos Klieber is generally considered to be the best Beethoven 5th conductor. Before him, his father was said to be the best. Here is a recording (no video) of Carlos Klieber with the Vienna Philharmonic. I have loved this performance ever since I first heard it. It has excitement with subtleties and nuances not usually audible from a full scale romantic symphony orchestra. Please give it a hearing.

One good pun after another.

There are many recordings of the well known Ravel orchestral version. The orchestration, in my posts above, as a concerto for piano and orchestra is not as well known and is why I brought it to attention here. Youtube listings show many orchestrations (arrangements) including one for two harps!

Here is 'Piano Concerto' Pictures at an Exhibition PART 3 of 4 PART 4 of 4

Pictures at an Exhibition has also been orchestrated as a piano concerto. It seems as if there are at least two versions, but my favourite is the 1977 version by composer and conductor Lawrence Leonard. I don't particularly like the orchestration with Émile Naoumoff, 1994. Here is part one of the 1977 orchestration: Here is 'Piano Concerto' Pictures at an Exhibition PART 2 of 4 - TAMÁS UNGÁR