Thursday, July 27, 2006

Thus is what happens when people have either too much time on their hand or are conceived and raised near nuclear power stations:

Anyone, who is anyone, knows of the tale that led to our beloved Wikipedia page being deleted (with well fought arguments and a stir of controversy I wish to add) without just cause. However, these whack-jobs are allowed to have their continue?

Double standards I tells ya! Though they appear to be mistaken as the Conglomerate State and Union of Desk, Bed, Shelves and Wardrobe, otherwise known as my room, is the smallest empire, state, nation, whatever they call their apartment, and not their imaginary empire.


Tuesday, July 25, 2006,21811,19901080-663,00.html

Of course the good ol' United States wouldn't want to stop the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Bush probably woke up the day Israel stepped up and probably thought he was still dreaming. Here was a war in the oil-ridden Middle East that he didn't have to start! Oil prices skyrocket, gold prices head upwards, the real American "leaders" (leading the country with their own hip-pocket) are getting richer by the missile launch. And they get to keep their hands clean and don't have to face the negative public backlash. All the while, it isn't their people dying over there is it? Nor is it their son or daughter on the front line in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Whether it's justifiable or not is a separate discussion, but in good ol' America's eyes (and their chum England's) why not let the two fight it out. At least England have said the U.N. needs to intervene, though, much good that will be without unanimous backing, or even with, how could they stop it all?


My reply from the always polite Samuel Gordon-Stewart:

Hi Clayton,
It was my pleasure to read your email, and I'll keep this one on hand for the next episode.

Clayton Northcutt.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

From here follows my feedback to Samuel's Persiflage #6.


Thank-you for your mention of our correspondence pertaining to the discussion we had about Samuel's Persiflage #5 in Samuel's Persiflage #6.

I would like to re-iterate the competency and quality of the program Avast! that you endorsed in the same episode. It is an extremely apt and capable anti-virus software.

Further, I would like to echo your sentiments on the "stupid" people who choose to call 1900-numbers after returning the supposed "missed call" on their mobile phone. One must be particularly daft to not realise this phone-scam, as it is only the mobile version of the land-line scam that has been doing the rounds for a few years prior. I believe we need to clean-up this 'scam-based' society for the ill-informed youth and the naive adults that carry mobile phones; those people who are susceptible to this scam. If yourself and your legions of listeners send in messages to Telstra, to Optus, to Senator Helen Coonan containing a voice of complaint and the 'offending' number, with your support, this endeavor could very well be achieved.

Clayton Northcutt.

Clayton Northcutt.

Though (supposedly) a berating that my email was, I am famous! Young Samuel did, in fact, recall our emails and read out my initial email on his latest Samuel's Persiflage. He acquitted himself quite well, accepting that we were both right in respects to the situations raised. Huzaa to Samuel!

Clayton Northcutt.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Prayers and dreams answered: Samuel's Persiflage is being updated! Young Samuel's memory will be put to test here to see if he remembers to mention the email concerning his comments on a new techonology that he mentioned (and subsequently did not like) in his latest audio commentary. If Sammy does recall, my brush with E-Grade fame will have happened!

Clayton Northcutt.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Just what soccer needs more of: people head-butting other people. I can honestly say I've never seen a charging head-butt on the soccer pitch, but I certainly want to see more.

One thing I do wish to see less of it Italian success in the sport. Bunch o' cheats.


Thursday, July 06, 2006

I happened to have an argument about the "credibility" of such shows as Today Tonight and A Current Affairs. Those with long memories may very well remember how A.C.A. reported how the drug Roaccutane, a drug treatment for acne, was, not the was, causing suicide among those on the trial here in Australia, and beyond trial in the United States. I happen to be on this drug, but only after this argument had it's way. That who I was arguing against stood firm that A.C.A. couldn't be wrong, possibly because it was on T.V., or because their argument was so convincing.

I, on the other hand, hate, despise and meet each advert (because I refuse to watch such pathetic shows) with utter contempt, and would take anything they supposedly "report" on with a pound of salt, much less a grain. I did watch this Roaccutane segment, as they drug had come up, without judgment of the suicidal type, prior in conversations with doctors. I watched this and laughed as I thought "Who would be so foolish to believe such drivel". Unfortunately, someone, at the time, who would be responsible for allowing me to get on the drug, did. Each time it came up that I'd need to go to the next step of treatment, Roaccutane was always put down. Well, time passed and I finally became old enough to make the call myself. Turns out that I do get it, and no problems, no increase in suicidal thoughts or depression etc.

But this isn't about me, it's about the crap shows that pass themselves off as conveying facts and "true" reporting. I did a year of Psychology at Uni, and though I eventually decided it wasn't really 'for me', I did take a lot from it and would consider finishing out the degree at a later time, because it is very applicable. But, like I said, I took a lot out of it, and a rule I now live my life by is, and everyone should remember this little saying:

Correlation is not causation

That is to say, because results correlate together does not mean any of those means measured are the actual causes. This statement proved the fallacies of the pre-scientific theory, the sexist and racist societies of, well, the pre-1960s (and such a late date itself is appalling, but wait, it gets later), and for the "freedom lands" of America, the pre-1970s. The statement manages to apply to, pretty much, any stereotype, prejudice and pre-conceived notion, good and bad, for all people. And generally, with the reports that the A.C.A. and Today Tonight shows put forward, that's one thing you need to keep in mind.

The second thing is that, as with all T.V. shows, all around the world, they are competing for ratings. Pure and simple, they are creating stories, yes, creating, that they hope is more interesting than the other channels and, thus, hope that you tune into them. That's why you will see something about diets, a supposed 'tear-jerker', something to get you mad and then how the government is screwing you over somehow. It's generally safe to say that each show will contain at least one of those, if not more. And it's a sad state of affairs that people are actually watching and believing these shows when all they are doing is showing one side of an argument, hiding facts, or portraying people in certain lights for public opinion and to attract viewers.

Pure and simple: these shows are rubbish. They hardly convey items of news or real interest. A shonkey and dishonest builder versus, say, a war raging in Iraq: the shonkey builder gets air-time. This is what Australian television has succumb to: absolute drivel. And why no one is actually speaking out against it is well beyond me.

Clayton Northcutt.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

I totally agree with what this article insinuates:

- Premier Beattie is an idiot
- Big Brother is God-awful
- Big Brother should be banished to the depths of Hell

So much for Queensland being the "smart state". Which fools would actually elect such a person as Premier?

Clayton Northcutt.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Sammy Gordey Stewey has redeemed himself with his latest, and timely, reply to my email sent less than a day ago:

Dear Clayton,

My sincere apologies for my tardiness in responding to your question.

I must admit that your analysis of the Samuel's Persiflage logo in intriguing, and I have to wonder how much time you spent analysing it. Possibly the most interesting thing about your analysis is how it has taken what was a simple idea in my head, and turned it into something far more complex.

My idea for the logo was simple, it was symbolic of the talking which would form the basis of Samuel's Persiflage, a speech bubble containing the name of the podcast. I also intended on having a speaker visible somewhere as an extra auditory symbol. The colours were supposed to be fairly simple, and they were. I enjoy using basic colours, I also enjoy creating two dimensional artworks.

The logo was a culmination of these factors, and roughly the picture I had in my head. It does stand out amongst the mass of podcast logos as it doesn't really follow the trends of artistic logos, which I suppose shows that it isn't going to be a podcasted attempt at regurgitating popular FM radio breakfast show trends, in fact it is quite the opposite, it is my own variation of an AM talk show.

Whilst I was only thinking of the artistic side of the logo while I was designing it, I am glad to see that it does represent what the show is all about.

Once again I apologise for not getting back to you sooner.


Clayton Northcutt.

Monday, July 03, 2006

For those who are able, late-night television is far better than prime-time. I've already expressed my views on the fantastic Arrested Development, but one un-sung hero of comedy is The Office. I began by watching the BBC version of this, and alas I couldn't take to it. However, the NBC adaptation is quickly becoming one of my favourites. And last night's episode was a reason why. It is, once again, a unique "genre" (in the sense that it is a documentary with the second wall (that between the camera and the characters) is broken down to non-existant) that is going unnoticed and unappreciated by commercial television and it's viewers alike.

This show is led by an extremely apt and able group of actors. The most well-known of these is the extremely skilled and talented Steve Carell, only recently widely-known to the more contemporary audience with such films as Anchorman and The Forty Year Olf Virgin. As the boss, I have had quite a many person who have seen his performance tell me "If you ever work in an office, you will meet a person like that.". This appears to be a testiment to the quality actor that Carell is. And he appitomises just what a 'bad' boss would be in my mind. John Krasinski's portrayal of a guy who's stuck in a situation he doesn't really want to be in is memorable every episode. And the great thing is, though these two are, in a sense, contrasts in each episode, Carell's and Krasinski's characters regularly finish out episodes with very few character-personality differences. Rainn Wilson probably has the hardest task in portraying Dwight Schrute, but so often I am reminded of people I know that resemble this suck-up, which further reinforces the notion that the cast of this great show are the people that make it great.

Clayton Northcutt.

My unfortunate email to the young Samuel:

Master Samuel,

I must regrettably convey to you my regrets and disappointment that you are yet to reply to my latest question to your fine self, even though he had, in fact, promised a timely response earlier to my initial sending. I do not wish to badger you for a reply or anything of the sort, only to wish to remind you that I do await a reply. I accept that you are a busy man, though, with just under a month since you said you would answer my question, I must question your seriousness of your response to me.

Clayton Northcutt.

Clayton Northcutt.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

To the one who questioned my correction on the use of 'I' or 'me' in certain sentences; the following, from

‘I’ or ‘me’?

Some people seem to think that the word ‘me’ is, somehow, crude or common. The mere use of the word appears to be something to be avoided. Maybe it is because ‘me’ has no capital letter, even though it refers to the speaker: the speaker exaggerates their importance. ‘Me’ is neither crude nor common. The incorrect use of ‘I’, when ‘me’ is appropriate, is very crude and all too common. Put the correct word in this sentence:

‘He told Charlotte and ___ to stand by the window.’

Hands up all those who said ‘I’? You are all wrong. Remain behind after school and write 50 lines. Try again.

‘He told ___ to stand by the window.’

Anyone who still thinks that ‘I’ is correct in that sentence is probably from a rural community in England’s West Country, for whom allowances must be made. Likewise, Rastafarians. The only difference between ‘He told me to stand by the window’ and the previous sentence is the addition of Charlotte. Charlotte does not make ‘me’ change into ‘I’. ‘I’ is one of those ‘doing’ words. You only follow ‘I’ with an action - stated or implied.

“Who will be going to the party?”
“Charlotte and I will.”

If you remove ‘will’ - which many people do, these days - ‘I’ does not metamorphose into ‘me’. The word “will” is implied - or ‘understood’.

“Who will be going to the party?”
“Charlotte and I.”

The use of ‘I’ or ‘me’ can be complicated and incorrectness in this area is very common.

Clayton Northcutt.