´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Exciting times for us

Eddie Mair | 12:31 UK time, Friday, 3 November 2006


here in G601. Tom Cruise has announced that he's taking control of United Artists. Variety.com reports that UA was originally established by Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks as a studio run by and for artists.

We've been thinking about this, and Carolyn and I are pleased to announced the founding of PA. It will represent us in all matters and will be exciting for all of us. Within weeks, I'm confident, we'll be bouncing on Oprah's couch. or at the very least being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman in a candlelit setting under Bella Emberg's dress.

I've spent the best part of the last 20 minutes trying to upload two new postcards and an old photo I thought you'd like. Keep getting an error message. Even switched it all off and back on, in the vain hope it might help. Sorry about that. Might try again a bit later but you know what Fridays are like.

In the meantime - tonight's US blogger: is .

Comments

  1. At 01:20 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Belinda wrote:

    Maybe PA stands for 'Political Organisation dedicated to hindering progress for Britain' Artists?

    Could Eddie bounce on Oprah's couch while wearing Bella Emberg's dress? Or would that be classified as too left-wing?

  2. At 01:34 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Tom Cruise has a movie studi to promote his "philosophy"

  3. At 01:37 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    Well today's Newsletter only took 40 minutes to make it up the M1 so I think we really are back to service as normal - thanks guys we really missed you.

    As for the US blog link, young men do some pretty silly things in fancy dress, and we do have our own example of that, but to have it endorsed by the President of his university ..... leaves me speechless.

  4. At 01:43 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Sara wrote:

    Great - the Newsletter's arrived, and it only took an hour to get here! Faster even than a pigeon.

    Don't know about Prinny and the yak - my son was once chased by an emu and that was pretty scary. What has Prinny done to the yak - or vice versa, maybe? I just don't like to think about it ... I do hope the item tonight will be in good taste.

  5. At 02:09 PM on 03 Nov 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Newsletter gratefully received!

    Re: Bonfires in the garden. They shouldn't be bad for the planet since they're burning (mostly) wood and are therefore carbon neutral. It's only burning oil & gas which have been locked up for millions of years.

    My question is: why?

    What's the point of bonfires and fireworks? You stand around in the freezing cold, being deafened by the thunderous bangs and whistles and watch some coloured patterns of light. all because of Guido's terrorist plot four hundred years ago.

    I wouldn't be bothered if I never saw a firework again. It's just lucky my cat quite likes watching them from the window and isn't bothered by the noise.

    On the other hand, my mum who has a bad heart, is terrified of them.

  6. At 02:13 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Re you and sequin making PA formal - astute and helpful bear.

  7. At 02:31 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Lawrence Glendinning wrote:

    And what a glorious image it would be of you and Carolyn bouncing on the sofa.

    At least you are taller than Mr Cruise.

  8. At 02:46 PM on 03 Nov 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Don't wish to carp (too much) but I don't have my newsletter yet?

    Keep on trying with the postcards, and yes FFred's idea is good - neither of us act out of self disinterest you understand - the 2 you are struggling with may well be ours :o)

  9. At 02:51 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Listen, if the august Sara Vaughan and Deepthroat on the Today Programme have started communicating in morse code - couldn't you do something imaginative with the bongs, preferably before BnB get to them.
    (I may of course have the wrong end of the stick entirely, as I normally prefer Little Toes to Today,on account of the Daily Mail approach giving me High Blood Pressure and only heard the morse by an unkind accident of fate)

  10. At 02:58 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Sorry, I meant to say my last message was from Nicole Kidding.
    And My newsletter has arrived. Only I cannot say thankyou by e-mail because I'm not there and I cannot send e-mails from here. Just comments. Endlessly this afternoon it appears.
    No, I'm not bored at all.

  11. At 03:04 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    It was rather wonderful hearing the absolute lost-for-wordedness of the 'Today' programme team at that endless dotting and dashing this morning.

    Bet they were falling over, themselves! (as opposed to falling over themselves).

    I suggest an item on PM delivered in semaphore. That should be a doddle for any former brownies, guides, cubs, scouts etc listening

  12. At 03:16 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Robinson Crusoe wrote:

    NO! I don't know what Fridays are like. So don't you Mr Mair start any nasty little rumours.

  13. At 03:17 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Frances O (13)
    Lovely idea, but I think our hero would flag after a whole hour of it.

  14. At 03:17 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    I see that Josue (tonight's US Blogger) has some beatiful pictures of the fall on his blogsite.

    Perhaps he can give you a few tips, or some advice on how to get the postcards up.

    And on that note we are still waiting for a pic of Lissa

  15. At 03:24 PM on 03 Nov 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Semaphore would be good Frances O - look, watch this


    see what I mean?

  16. At 03:28 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Frances O (13)

    but it might attract more sailors.....

  17. At 03:37 PM on 03 Nov 2006, RobbieDo wrote:

    Valery

    I think that should have been:

    _|
    |_
    V
    |_
    _/
    _|

    Your spelling is atroshus

  18. At 04:17 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    ( )

    (( ))
    ( )


    ( )

    ( )
    (( ))

    ()
    ()

    (I've posted this message in smoke signals; it should drift over Broadcasting House in time for Eddie to read it out during PM letters).

  19. At 04:21 PM on 03 Nov 2006, OnTheLedge wrote:

    Nearly four hours ago Eddie said something about posting cards?

    Where are they?

  20. At 04:23 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Humph wrote:

    Hello Stainless (7)

    Although you are correct that a bonfire burns biogenic (living in the present) material and so re-introduces carbon that has only recently been in the atmosphere, a bonfire is a very inefficient burning system. There is a large stack of fuel with no oxidant (oxygen) supplied to anywhere except the outside. That means that not all of the carbon is converted to CO2 and a large number of organic compounds are released into the atmosphere. Generally these will have a bigger impact on the greenhouse effect than CO2 (e.g. methane is about 20 times as strong as CO2 in the greenhouse ratings). Unless these compounds are converted to CO2 in the atmosphere, and many of them are eventually, then that carbon is lost to the photosynthetic carbon cycle and will remain as a greenhouse gas.

    Fireworks present a different problem. One of the ingredients for gunpowder is sulphur and when this burns in the atmosphere it produces a range of different sulphur oxides. These will then dissolve in atmospheric moisture and produce acid rain (an environmental catastrophe from a couple of decades back that no-one seems to mention anymore). In addition, a variety of organic compounds and inorganic salts are added to them to produce all those lovely colours. Although these are used at nominally safe levels, it is still spraying around a large number of chemicals for no real good reason apart for the entertainment of some people. It will not be long before the environmental lobby start using this to call on a ban for firework night (or should that be firework fortnight?).

    There now, hands up all those who think that a degree in chemistry is a waste of time.

    H.

    P.S. All the best to your cat and all the pets of other frogs at this disturbing time. H.

    P.P.S. You can all put your hands down now! H.

  21. At 04:46 PM on 03 Nov 2006, silver-fox wrote:

    Brilliant postings.


  22. At 05:08 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Humph (22)
    I'm not sure I fully understand, but are we to hope fervently that all our pets and frogs don't f*rt in fright at the fireworks, otherwise we will be knee deep in methane?

  23. At 05:15 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Silver fox,

    what else would you expect?

    ps do stay indoors (underground?) on bonfire night

  24. At 05:21 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Eddie, don't tease! You said there were lightbulb jokes on the blog (at about 1818). None visible yet. (1820). Remember, frog time is even more removed from real time than digital time is.

  25. At 05:27 PM on 03 Nov 2006, luc wrote:

    I think Dahlia must've failed to realise that methane has less density than air.

    If she wants to avoid being knee deep in pet emissions then her only hope is to stand on her head, preferably in heels.

    I once got a B+ at integrated science, so I know what I'm talking about,

  26. At 05:34 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    My posting (20),

    The PM blog stripped out all the spaces, so the top smoke cloud was furthest to the right, down to the bottom one at the bottom left.

    This means that the smoke was rising vertically, and so Eddie won't be able to see it from the studio this evening in time for PM letters. Blast.

  27. At 05:35 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Eddie has used his blogbot to post another thread whilst simultaneously speaking to the nation. except me, because I'm here and can't. rats rats rats (sorry Humph)

  28. At 05:36 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Thank you Humph (and Dahlia)!

    Hard to be a Human Ecologist in these times, with a history of a chemistry degree founded by a boy's interest in things that go BANG! God (generic) seems to protect the foolish.

    None of that or further education has been a waste of time, but the burden of awareness is heavy.

    Never mind, Nucular is gonna make it possible for us to live in a of ever-increasing energy profligacy for ever and ever, ain't it?
    Vaya con Gaia
    ed

  29. At 05:36 PM on 03 Nov 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Humph (22):

    Wow! Very interesting stuff there.

    Who says the frog is all fluff?

  30. At 05:41 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    luc (27)
    Yeeooowww

  31. At 05:43 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Rosalind wrote:

    The joys of retirement. I spent most of this afternoon walking the puppy (well I walked, he investigated and chased) along the shore, and watched the birds: curlews, turnstones, gulls various, a redshank. The weather is uncannily beautiful, everything is clear and sharp.

    I do know I am lucky, but I did teach at a large comprehensive school in North London all my working life (after I had the children), so maybe I shouldn't feel too guilty.

    I don't know why I wrote that really, except I sympathise with the Friday feeling.

  32. At 05:48 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Jenny in Northampton wrote:

    If you want/need any more lighbulb jokes, here's another one. It's my favourite joke! (How sad).

    How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lighbulb?

    One. But the lightbulb must really want to change.

    Sorry, I'll go now.

  33. At 06:10 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    What if we added saltpeter (oxidant) to the bonfire? Would that make it burn cleaner? Brighter, I reckon. C+S+O+N (or Cl?)

    Some of us never really grow up.
    xx
    ed

  34. At 07:21 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Ho, hum, the fireworks have started again. Can't they wait till Sunday?
    Spose it's one of those municipal-type dos.

    It's been about 3 weeks now

  35. At 07:41 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Back in the real world, a little sad on the report from Gaza this evening.

    Salaam/Shalom/Shanti/Peace
    ed

  36. At 08:02 PM on 03 Nov 2006, Anne P. wrote:

    I've noticed it always tends to be foggy the day after the fireworks which must mean there's some effect.

    But has anyone quantified the effect of all the bombings and consequent fires in the various current wars?

    I'd be happy to give up Guy Fawkes if they will give up their little games. But the boys with the toys will always want to see if they can make a bigger bang than the other guy.

    Sad.

    Perhaps I'll head for the beach since I can't remember any lightbulb jokes.

  37. At 08:40 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    I'm fed up with the fireworks & we've only been back a day. Hideous noise, smell & waste of money. As someone who has sat through literally hundreds of outdoor concerts featuring fireworks, if fireworks were banned tomorrow I wouldn't miss them!
    I thought the best bit about us visiting a Muslim country last week would be that we would be spared the ghastliness of Halloween. How wrong I was! Supermarkets full of plastic pumpkins, devil tridents, plastic fangs, etc etc, the whole range of hideousness. Culminating in a school fair with all the children & staff dressed up in Halloween costumes & getting bucketloads of sweet stuff. Hmmm. Something wrong there, I fear. I wonder if they'll be celebrating Guy Fawkes as well? This globalism is getting beyond a joke.

  38. At 08:59 PM on 03 Nov 2006, wrote:

    I misheard Eddie's intro to the getting out of debt item tonight ( doing noisy cooking at the time). I thought he said "and are people going too far to get out of BED these days?" ! Worrying thing is, in the split second before I realised what he meant, my brain had constructed a perfectly acceptable item on extra-big beds & how difficult it was to get up in the morning & heave yourself out of bed.
    I read an article in New Scientist recently - the process is apparently called confabulation, where the brain makes up stories to fit what it thinks it knows. Very common in Alzheimers & other dementia sufferers, also brain injured people. But can also be produced in people with no disorders, by clever experiments. I think they might be right!

  39. At 11:13 AM on 04 Nov 2006, Aunt Dahlia wrote:

    Annasee (40)
    I thought thats what the perceptive net did - fit experience to new data and come up with a rational(!!??) explanation, as a simple survival mechanism - other wise we'd all be constantly being the whale in HHG2
    But I'm desperately impressed that I know (almost) someone who actually reads the New Scientist.

    And Rosalind (33) thank you for the vicarious breath of air. Hope the puppy is coming on well.

  40. At 01:31 PM on 04 Nov 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Annasee (40), LOL - due to recognition of many similar symptoms :)

  41. At 03:38 PM on 04 Nov 2006, wrote:

    Aunt Dahlia (41) would that I could claim it was my own copy of the New Scientist I was reading. Sadly it belonged to the friends we were visiting. That's why we went to visit - they have magazines like that around the house, along with "Teach Yourself Arabic" & generally clever stuff. Anyone visiting our house, on the other hand, is lucky if they can find an old copy of Private Eye. That's the extent of our intellectual stimulation. Apart from this blog, of course.

  42. At 10:02 AM on 05 Nov 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Cough, cough - the fug of fireworks was certainly thick in the air last night. I asked for a lift instead of taking the 10-minute walk back from meeting some friends.

  43. At 10:13 AM on 06 Nov 2006, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    I disagree with the MP about banning Bonfire Night.

    It has long been my view that if bonfires were banned on all other days EXCEPT November 5th., the environment would be heaps cleaner. This is because instead of people (they know who they are) trying to burn green garden waste in the summer, they would have much drier material to burn on Bonfire Night. This would burn faster and cleaner.

    "When the Government bans bonfires I'll believe they care about the environment."

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.