That includes my blog. It is here for when I want to write, not when you want to read.

Anyway, I was reading this and just exclaimed, to myself (no one else in the house: Mike is at Keele, Johnny is back in Brum and Ravenclaw (James) is in Warwick with his wench) 'Yes! Yesyesyesyes YES!'

Check it out, computer games you control with your, erm, 'stream of glory' - two to be exact, a shoot-em-up involving aliens, and a skiing game.

Apparently they work by sensing the impact of your 'yellow river of justice' on the back of the urinal, thus controlling the game. I can sense that I'm gonna need a lot of coffee in the future - I'm going for the high score.

Why should I fill you in, nothing has really happened. Got a car, (Fiesta, 1.3 1996 -- its red...), got some work experience, hopefully. That is all. What I really came here to say, stepping onto my soapbox on the internet, is to condemn China.

Yes, yes... bandwagon and jumping comes to mind rather quickly... but nevertheless. Anyway, I am complaining (to no one in particular) not about the atrocious human rights record of the PRC, which I feel now needs no other highlighting, but about how they seem angry, and vilified by all these protests. What exactly did they expect would happen? Regardless of the recent uprisings (there has been doubt about the accuracy of the reports, whether China really did do what people are saying) they do not have an impressive record in Tibet, or their own country.

It is rather naiive for a country to say that the Olympic procession is about sports and not politics, when they themselves have made an infamous front page news subject for a number of years. One cannot simply decide to forget all the controversial things which China has done (and don't get me wrong, although I condemn it, we have no right to stop them - who gave the
West the right to police the world?) in favour of sportsmanship, that is illogical. It is my honest opinion and belief that China has brought this upon itself. Boycotts and protests will happen, and China can now do nothing about it, or blame anyone but themselves.

Not being all that far from Lincolnshire, we had a good ride last night as our terraced house shook from side to side - along the 10 house terrace. Nothing damaged, just spilt pint of water on my floor, but our nerves were definately shaken.

I was literally about to get up and stand under my door frame, but it stopped. So I went to sleep instead, this morning I had basically forgotton about it until I switched on the computer and saw the news sites. I still think this quote is funniest:

The repair bill is expected to exceed £10,000, but the clergyman said he was confident that the grade-II* listed, medieval church was insured against acts of God.

I thought that was worth a chuckle...

Is there not something tragically and painfully ironic about this.

I was just writing up a history lecture, and thought I would share it with you - its fairly hard going, but interesting stuff. If it doesn't read well, that's because I am not marked for writing these up, but it is still mandatory - and I often write in an almost stream of conciousness way.

The philosophy of history is suggested to be the examination of the claim that historians can claim to ‘know the past’. This thesis can be broken down further, is the past truly knowable? How is this possible and are the ways in which historians claim to know the past, capable of independent verification, outside the scope of history as an academic study. An example of this independent verification is the case of David Irving, the scientist imprisoned in Austria on Holocaust denial charges. Examples such as Irving, lead certain academics to ask, can historians be trusted with the power of history, with the power to publish and clarify events for both other historians and the public, without independent verification?
Richard Evans writes, in his book ‘In defence of history’, that he often defends his idea of history from a number of challenges which have arisen over the past few years. Is historical fact indisputable? He goes on to highlight two conflicting views of ‘historical fact’; Geoffrey Elton, of the Rankian school, believes that historical facts have an independent existence, that they contain the ability to reveal the past, and that they must be treated as a pathologist treats evidence, without contaminating it, within a body, in order for him to work out what happened with his or her subject. The second interpretation of historical fact is from EH Carr, who contends that facts are created by historians, that certain facts are granted privileged status by historians, and that they play a role in the scenario that the historian is trying to reproduce.
Both Writers agree that facts exist independently, but neither agree on how they become historical; it is theory that precedes the search for facts, as it is accepted that a lot of historians begin with a theory and then apply facts around the theopretic framework. However this can lead to ignorance of evidence, raising another interesting point: can one be selective in the use of evidence, but still be an objective historian? Development of interpretation inherent in the material provided should be an interpretation that is always latent in the body of evidence, in order for it to acceptable, material can only be truly interpreted in one way, and there is often only one truth – it is imperative that historians never let assumptions and belief affect this one, true interpretation.