Dear Lindsay Roy MP I would like to ask you to watch the following video and read the accompanying article on guardian.co.uk - the video shows a mounted police charge on unarmed protestors, including women and children in London earlier this week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/26/police-student-protests-horses-charg... I would then like to ask you what the hell is happening to the Police force in this country? Armed thugs in the TSG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group) routinely cover up their identifying numbers in order to avoid repercussions. Their heavy-handed and brutal approach has caused more misery and fear in this country than any terrorist threat and this needs to stop. Policing only works if people respect and support the police force. That is in danger of crumbling. This is state terrorism, and its happening in THIS COUNTRY. British democracy is a high-water mark for many countries around the world. Our right to protest is fundamental to our democracy and is being systematically destroyed. That may sound overly dramatic, but I urge you to watch that video and tell me things haven't taken a turn for the worse. I urge you to raise your voice in protest in Parliament. Yours sincerely, Rory Sinclair
Yay! Ordered! Can't wait! ... Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? Why hasn't it shipped yet? ... Yay! Its shipped! Can't wait! .... Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? Why haven't they updated the tracking yet? ... Yay! Tracking info! Can't wait! ... Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? Where is it now? ... etc.
One year since the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the americans are still baying for blood, and Cameron is still not backing the Scottish government's decision to release.
Is it just me, or is Cameron's siding with the US view that the release was a 'mistake' utterly disgusting and shameful? Is it not Cameron's duty to stand by his British countrymen on this important issue? Can we not seek to set an example to the world, by showing compassion to the compassionless? Is it not, in fact, by such acts that we can hope to grow and evolve as a species? To demonstrate our own superiority to those who would murder and maim, by refusing to lower ourselves to their level, to seek primitive retribution, and to deny our basic humanity?
To me, this whole issue has many facets, most of which are neatly ignored by the mainstream media. Firstly, the Libyans are portrayed as gleefully glorifying their 'hero', lording over us the fact that he lives on, seemingly insensitive to the pain and loss of those Scots on the ground and those Americans in the air who lost their lives on that day. What the media neatly avoids mentioning, since it gives the story depth and complexity and - crucially - shades of grey, is the fact that, to the average Libyan, al-Megrahi is an innocent man, framed by the West for a crime he did not commit. I personally believe that Megrahi is not guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, or at the very least, that there is a reasonable doubt. His deteriorating health and diminishing chances of spending his last years with his family forced him to abandon his appeal, his determination to clear his name.
So if not al-Megrahi, who did blow up the Pan-Am flight over Lockerbie, and why? To answer that question, you must first look into the shooting down of IranAir flight 655 by the USS Vincense. And to fully understand *that* incident, you need to look into the attack on the USS Stark one year before that, by an Iraqi jet which fired two Exocet missiles at it, killing thirty seven crewmen.
I won't go into detail about the case for al-Megrahi's innocence - you can do your own damn googling - but I will provide some links to start with:
So I pinged Steve Jobs about this issue with the iPhone 4 antenna. Sounds to me like they knew about it in testing but figured its not a big deal.
Amazing to have been able to chat with The Man Himself, anyway. We'll see how this antenna thing plays out, I guess...
Hi Steve,
So, um, just got my iPhone 4. Its lovely and all, but this 'bridge the two antennae to kill your reception' thing seems to be a bit serious. If I bridge them with my hand or with a piece of metal the bars slowly drop to 'Searching...' and then 'No Service'.
Its kind of a worry. Is it possible this is a design flaw?
Regards
- Rory Sinclair
His reply:
Nope. Just don't hold it that way.
I texted someone from the phone and noticed reception dropping as I texted, down to 'No Service', so I emailed again:
Actually, its not calls that concern me, but i've just been writing a text and its very natural for me as a right-handed person to hold it that way, with the part of my hand at the base of my thumb covering the point the antennae meet, and it kills the reception each time.
I mean, pretty much as soon as i move my hand it comes back, but its pretty crazy... is this the reason Bumpers exist?
- Rory
Another one-liner is my prize:
Just don't hold it that way then.
Hmm.. I persevere:
Well, yeah, thats what i'll do, but you have to admit thats a workaround, yeah? I mean, normally there aren't limits to how you can hold a phone. I seriously dig the phone, its totally amazing, but I think this is what many would call a design flaw. - Rory
His last reply:
Sure there are - every phone has these areas of sensitivity, depending on the location of the antenna. Some phones even ship with labels warning customers to not cover certain areas with their hands.
So Claire went to the dvd rental place the other night to get some films Ruaridh might enjoy. She spent a long time browsing the DVD section and ended up rending Coraline, and the 80's classic The Goonies.
I got home to find her in a frustrated fluster, unable to get either disc to play on our HTPC machine. 'Leave it to me' says I, and step in to rescue her.... ... only to discover that the Goonies disc is so utterly scratched to fuckery you can barely see your reflection in the damn thing, let alone expect it to play. The Coraline disc looks pristine but the machine just makes a funny noise and spits it back out. What gives? Oh... they've given her the Blu-Ray version instead of the DVD. Bastards. Useless, useless bastards. So I do what any sane person would do. I hop onto my laptop, find a couple of NZBs and fire them into my Usenet client. Within 45 mins I have both films* ready to watch without any tedious bollocksing about with physical media or having to watch those incredibly tedious (and more often than not unskippable) ads and trailers. In the end, its about the end-user experience. People want things to 'just work' without having to arse around, and without having to have mandatory crap shoved down their throats. Treat your customers a little better, and they'll thank you for it. (*Disclaimer: This is of course not true. I do not ever steal films off t'internets.)
From: Rory Sinclair <rory@mungler.com> To: armandhammer@churchdwight.co.uk Subject: Arm and Hammer Toothpaste with 'Liquid Calcium'Hi, I recently purchased a tube of Arm and Hammer toothpaste, which claimed to contain 'liquid calcium'. However, since the melting point of Calcium is somewhere around 840 degrees centigrade, somewhat higher than normal room temperature, I wonder how this claim can be justified. I understand of course that the toothpaste cannot possibly contain liquid calcium at room temperature (unless of course the room in question is located on the surface of Venus), but am concerned at the pseudo-scientific nature of this claim, and its possible effect on the ill-informed, teeth-brushing public. Perhaps some sort of disclaimer would be in order - 'New Arm and Hammer Toothpaste with Liquid Calcium* (*disclaimer: Does not, in fact, contain liquid calcium)'. Please note, I am not a crackpot, simply a very bored person with the fond hope that someone, somewhere will read this email and raise a (no doubt dazzling and perfectly white) smile. Best regards Rory Sinclair
Thanks for fast payment! I will post your lens 1st class recorded, tomorrow am. You should have it on Thursday (with luck!)
Kind Regards, Tony
Hi Rory! Lens posted 'First Class Recorded Delivery' this morning 4th November.
Royal Mail Tracking Number:
*REDACTED*
Kind Regards, Tony
[ All very pleasant and communicative so far. Then the lens arrives and I have a little problem... ]
Hi Tony,
Rory here again. I just tried the lens on my Pentax K-2000, and it doesnt seem to be working in 'A' mode - in fact, its not behaving any differently from my Pentax-M 50mm. The aperture ring seems really stiff and sticky, and the camera isnt letting me take a shot at all unless I enable the 'allow manual aperture ring' setting, which presumably it shouldn't need if set to 'A'.
Any ideas what to try? The Auto aperture setting was the whole reason I bought this lens to replace my Pentax-M.
Cheers
- Rory
No Idea! Worked perfectly on my Pentax K100D Super!
I will, of course, refund your purchase, if you are at all unhappy. I am 61 and have been using Pentax equipement since the 1960's from the Ashiflex Pentax, through to the ME Super to (now) the Pentax K100D Super. I consider this to be a fine Pentax lens and will happily take it back. You know FUCK ALL!!!
Tony
[ Err... wtf just happened? I had to read the email about 20 times to make sure I wasn't seeing things! I pen a response... ]
Er... thats a bit of an extreme reaction isnt it? I was only asking if there was something I needed to do to get it to work with the DSLR. I mean, I wasnt having a go at you or anything - why the hostility?
- Rory
Look, it's a perfect lens. If it's not working on your camera, is it my fault?
It works perfectly on my Digital K100D Super. The focus setting switch on camera is set to 'M' and I get the f setting and the speed displayed in the camera's 'view' screen.
I dont't understand your complaint, George!
If the 'auto' setting does not work on your camera - well it does on mine! Is that MY problem?
I repeat. the lens is perfect and I will send you your money back!
Kind Regards Tony - What more can I say?
[ Our Tony is unrepentant, and seems confused about my name. I decide to ignore the absurdly hostile response and try to find out if the lens should actually work. I discover from various sources that in fact it should. ]
Hi again,
According to this chart, it should definitely work on the K-m / K2000 :
Have you successfully tested this lens in automatic modes on a Pentax DSLR?
Cheers
- Rory
Look, it's a perfect lens. If it's not working on your camera, is it my fault?
It works perfectly on my Digital K100D Super. The focus setting switch on camera is set to 'M' and I get the f setting and the speed
displayed in the camera's 'view' screen.
I dont't understand your complaint, George!
If the 'auto' setting does not work on your camera -
well it does on mine! Is that MY problem?
I repeat. the lens is perfect
Tony
[ George again. I wonder who George is? He's still being reasonable, at least, in offering a refund...]
Will sned you a refund after you have returned yhe lens, recorded, at your own expense (£3.50?)
My address is:
Tony *redacted*
94 *redacted*
*redacted*
Kind Regards, Tony
[ Ok, I think... i'll wrap it up
and get it in the post tomorrow. But.. uh-oh... 'George' is back... ]
You wrote in your first email:" the camera isnt letting me take a shot at all unless I enable the 'allow manual aperture ring' setting, which presumably
it shouldn't need if set to 'A'. "
George - That's precisely how you use Pentax-A lens on a digital camera, it is a manual focus lens with auto diaphram!!
I withdraw my offer of a refund as I believe you are just buggering me about. That is, I have decided that your complaint to me about this perfect lens is not justified.
You must now refer to ebay and/or paypal who will examine our emails and make a decision on this matter. The lens you bid on and won was perfect in every respect and works on all K mount Pentax cameras.
Kind Regards, Tony
[ I do my homework to double and triple check the facts. Yup, i'm right and he's wrong... ]
Actually, you're wrong. The setting in the camera's options is to enable manual control of the
aperture ring. It is not required for lenses with an 'A' setting on the aperture ring.
I have here an SMC Pentax-A 28mm f2.8 lens, which works perfectly on my camera in all modes
with the aperture ring set to the 'A' position. I don't have to enable the setting for that lens.
- Rory
PS Who is George?
[ I couldn't resist the PS! ]
Rory or George or whatever your name is - read my last email, and then go on to contact ebay or paypal. I have sent you a perfect lens, and have used it on my Pentax 100D Super with no problems.
[ At this point im checking his feedback history... and discover he purchased a suspiciously similar lens on the 22nd October for about 20 quid less than he sold it to me for. So... ]
Is this the lens you bought on the 22nd Tony?
Did you even check it before you sold it on?
- Rory
[ Tony responds with typical maturity... ]
PILLOCK!
[ Ouch! But hold on here... ]
Why are you so angry? I'm the one thats been sold a duff lens.
The lens you sold me has a mechanical fault. The little pin which indicates to the camera that the aperture ring is in the A position is missing.
The fact that you've been totally hostile and abusive from the first second I queried you about it suggests to me that either you knew it was faulty, or are just trying to bully me into accepting faulty goods.
That is a lie you must prove.
The lens functioned perfectly on my camera. And with over 40 years experience of using Pentax equipment I declare that the lens is perfect.
I now challenge you to complain to paypal and attempt to provide evidence of your blatent lie.
God forgive you.
[ I don't think God gives a stuff mate, he's too busy not existing and everything. I'm trying to understand his angle here... ]
So... you think I go around ordering lenses off ebay then *pretending* they're faulty?
What would be the point of that?
So... you think I go around selling lenses on ebay pretending they are perfect, when they are broken? What would be the point of that?
[ Ooooh I dunno.... perhaps to get fifty quid for a fucked lens? ]
I used the lens I sold you on my own camera and found it worked perfectly. Otherwise, I would not have sold it! I only sell what I, myself, would be happy to buy.
I object to your assault on my integrity, and demand that you contact ebay or paypal, over this matter.
Kind Regards, Tony
[ He objects? HE objects?! ]
So it's unaccetable to question your integrity, but it's perfectly acceptable for you to tell me I know "FUCK ALL!!!" and that I'm a "PILLOCK"?
That's fair is it?
Yes, that's correct.
[ Oh ho ho ho very droll Tony. Time to be the mature one in this relationship... ]
The whole thing is, Tony, I was perfectly prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that perhaps the lens was damaged in transit. However, from the very first contact about this problem, you have been abusive, aggressive and utterly unreasonable, resorting to personal attacks, profanity and a petulance of which a 5-year old would be proud. The fact is that the lens is damaged - yes it will function as a manual lens, but thats not what you sold it as - you sold it as a fully working, mint condition Pentax-A lens, which should operate in Automatic aperture mode. I can also tell you exactly why it doesn't function correctly - the pin which sticks up through a tiny hole in the mount when its in 'A' position is missing, so the camera assumes its a manual lens.
The language you used in your correspondence is a clear violation of eBay policies and you can be sure I will be reporting this incident to eBay. With luck they'll allow me to retract my premature feedback and give me a chance to tell any future buyers what a thoroughly disagreeable person you are when it comes to any problems with the products you sell.
I'm still amazed that you are acting like this - its a far cry from the pleasant communications we had before the lens arrived. All very Jekyll and Hyde.
My 100% seller record as being a fine and trustworthy seller for over six years does not support your lying assertions. Will you provide a photograph of the " the pin which sticks up through a tiny hole in the mount when its in 'A' position is missing"... to prove your whinges? Can you tell me how you know so much about this lens?
Have you taken it apart to examine it?
I have been telling you for days to get in touch with paypay and ebay.
Kind Regards, Tony
[ A photograph! What a good idea! Meantime, another appeal to reason and logic... ]
Ok here's a question.
Are you willing to accept that it is within the realms of possibility that the lens was damaged in transit?
If so, can you explain why you felt it was justified to be so wholly unpleasant about my simple query? In my initial communication about the problem I at no point blamed you, nor questioned your integrity, nor even asked for a refund - all I asked was if there was something special I needed to do to get the lens to work with my camera.
At that point, *you* swore at me, and *you* started whingeing. "Is it MY problem?" Well, as the vendor in this transaction, i'm afraid it is indeed your problem - items in transit remain the responsibility of the seller until delivered. Goods damaged in transit are the seller's responsibility.
You took out postal insurance for the item. If it's possible it was damaged in transit, why is it so unthinkable you could simply claim the insurance from the Royal Mail? Why, in short, are you so totally unwilling to be reasonable about this situation?
Your 100% positive rating as a seller is impressive, to be sure. I imagine however that will only last until the next time a buyer has a problem and you swear at and bully them - hopefully they wont have made the same mistake I have and left feedback prematurely.
I will be contacting eBay and Paypal in due course.
- Rory
Rory!Erm ... can you send the photograph which will prove that "the pin which sticks up through a tiny hole in the mount when its in 'A' position is missing" Re bad manners:Yes, I used my normal language to express annoyance. I was initially reacting to your first complaint about the lens which I knew was not true.I had used the lens on my camera and would have spotted a problem immediately. If I thought that there was a problem with the lens, I would not have put it up for sale. Send the photograph to me and prove your point. Tony
[ Almost an acknowledgement he was out of order there. By this time its late and I have Ru to put to bed - i'm not in the mood for taking pictures of duff equipment. One final appeal to reason, then... ]
Re: photograph - gladly, i'll send one tomorrow, i'm currently dealing with a 3-year old with a broken arm.
Re: you expressing annoyance. All I can say, then, is that you seriously need to watch your temper - nobody had had a go at you, and if you expect to be treated as a professional and courteous seller, you need to maintain good grace. Presumably you accept that this damage could have occoured in transit. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, why not afford me the same? In any event, swearing at a customer is a definite no-no in any situation, certainly not as part of the very first response to an innocent query. I'm amazed that at your age you need such a lesson in basic manners.
Rory
[ But of course, that falls on deaf ears... ]
Send me the fucking photograph to prove your complaint!
[ OK, i'll bite. Here's your evidence, mofo... ]
Here is the video uploaded to YouTube for your viewing pleasure:
