venta | Entries tagged with confused

Having bought virtually no clothes in the past two years (it's not really like I've been anywhere), I splashed[*] out on some new running gear. Including - as an experiment - a pair of fancy anti-chafe runners' socks.

So now I have discovered the concept of having my socks on the wrong feet :(

[*] I mean, I only went to Decathlon. And I bought one long-sleeved top, one pair of running tights, and one pair of socks. So it wasn't a very big splash. More of a ripple.

Crossposts: https://venta.livejournal.com/556379.html

Earlier this week, I bought some tickets for Doctors, Dissection and Resurrection Men. It's an exhibition at the Museum of London, following the excavation of a burial ground which contained "extensive evidence of dissection, autopsy and amputation, bones wired for teaching, and animals dissected for comparative anatomy". I bought the tickets on a Time Out special offer.

Based on that, Time Out have just sent me an email of further offers they think might interest me: cut-price deals on Brazilian bikini waxing, rabbit vibrators, a bulk buy of 50 condoms, a "boudoir" photo-shoot or a "Boink Box" (no, really).

I remain lightly bewildered. And very slightly concerned that I have misunderstood about the resurrection men.

Current Music: Violent Femmes - Violent Femmes

Earlier today, I had an email from a hotel who thought I might be tempted by their super-special Valentine's package[*]. Among various epic meals and chocolatey promises, it includes "rose petals on the bed".

To which my reaction was "you what"? Isn't that, like, a really bad idea? Won't they get crushed and stain the bedding? Won't they get stuck to all parties involved? Won't they wrinkle up awkwardly and work themselves into odd corners of the sheets and make it really uncomfortable? Not to mention that they'll probably make me and any other hayfever sufferers sneeze.

Am I just hopelessly unromantic and/or practical? Am I missing an important point? Or is this really just one of those ideas that is far better in theory than practice?

[*] I wasn't. But that's not important right now.

Current Music: The Long Winters - The Worst You Can Do Is Harm

Having paid for both myself and a colleague in the pub this lunchtime, I asked for a receipt so I'd be better able to answer the inevitable question "how much do I owe?"

The receipt says:
2 Cola Pos WI SmGl 2.90 1 Gue 4.0-4.4 Pt 3.20 1 Gr. Brit Cod+Chi 8.95 1 MD LUN Stk+AlePi 6.99

( Which is impressively impenetrable, I think )

Current Music: James Blake - The Bells Sketch

Please help me. I am ( confused about dwarves )

Current Music: Idiot Son - Lummox

I appear to be very stupid and not quite on the same planet as everyone else this morning.

However. I'm unsure whether this is a further example of my stupid, or whether someone else is being stupid.

I was being encouraged to sign this petition:

http://apps.facebook.com/fourwaystospeakout/

... but I can't anywhere work out what the actual text of the petition I would be signing is. I understand I'm being asked to "send a strong message to the government", but what is the message?

NB I'm not logged in to Facebook, if that makes any difference.

At the end of last week, there was a story in the London Evening Standard about some workmen causing havoc in a Paddington graveyard.

"Workmen have desecrated an 18th century burial ground by destroying scores of ancient tombs," trumpeted the opening sentence, "some of which belonged to children."

Now, really this is quite a dull story. Some workmen had to dig out a wall, they uncovered some ancient gravestones, they smashed them to continue their digging. Not really what they should have done (in my opinion), but hardly screaming-banner-headline stuff.

What confuses me is the idea that, to make things worse, some of the graves belonged to children. I understand the LES wants to try and make every story as dramatic as it can, but is there actually anyone, anywhere, who thinks it worse to desecrate a child's grave than an adult's?

I've always struggled with the idea that a child's death is more tragic than an adult's (in the abstract, I mean - I understand it's a tragedy to, say, the child's parents). But that this should carry on into the hereafter to make a child's grave more sacred than an adult's... well, I just don't get it.

Current Music: The Crimea - Secrets of the Witching Hour

A while ago, I saw someone on my friends list posting something which basically said "here's what I think about this issue, and I'm a little confused by it, what are your thoughts?"

It's a very disconcerting thing to find yourself thinking something, but not to be sure whether you're entirely comfortable with your own opinions, or whether someone could easily shoot them down in flames.

( So, here's what I think about this issue, and I'm a little confused by it, what are your thoughts? )

Can someone with a better knowledge of English literature[*] help me out here ?

( Into the valley of death! )

[*] I mean "the subject of Eng. lit. as taught in schools", rather than just "the body of literature in the English language". That these are so distinct may be telling.

Current Music: Bloc Party - A Weekend in the City

Yesterday, in a sushi restaurant, I observed that one could get a sushi roll containing "Cooked Gurds". Using the sort of lateral thinking required on typo-ridden menus, I decided they probably meant "gourds", and that it would be some sort of squash. Which sounded interesting.

I ordered one: "a sushi roll with gourds, please". "Cooked gurds?" enquired the waitress, pointing to the menu. She pronounced it as "cook-ed". I agreed. I wouldn't want raw squash, after all.

Food began arriving. A small board with six maki sitting neatly on it landed. It looked like fish; I ruled it to be part of ChrisC's sushi set, and he ate it (well, except for the bits I filched). I'm pretty sure it was fish - and raw fish at that.

Then ChrisC's sushi set arrived... with its own roll in tow. Nothing else showed up.

We therefore deduced that whatever the first roll was had been my cook-ed gurds. Does anyone have the first idea what cook-ed gurds might be ? Did, in fact, completely the wrong thing show up, but we failed to realise ? A quick google has not proved helpful.

(In other respects I was quite impressed with the food served by the extraordinarily busy Café Japan. My set meal - a big pile of four kinds of sashimi, miso soup, rice, salad, a tofu startery thing and some pickles - seemed like pretty good value at £12.)

Current Music: British Sea Power - Do You Like Rock Music ?

Occasionally, I use the 'Notes' feature in my phone. Today I opened it to jot down the booking reference for my flight tomorrow, and found the following:

Mum pride and p,
astronomy.
Dad paddinton.
Green eggs

What?

I've reproduced it exactly as it appears in the phone note - I assume I meant Paddington, though whether the bear or the station is a mystery. Pride and Prejudice is one of the mother's favourite books - as, in fact, is Green Eggs and Ham though the very mention of it causes my Dad to try and hide under the furniture.

What on earth was I listing ?

Current Music: Sunbear - Things To Do

Baby P ( who cannot be named for legal reasons )

So, sums. I can, broadly speaking, do sums. I have a degree in maths.

However, interest rate calculations have always baffled me. Sure, if you ask me to calculate 3 months compound interest at a monthly rate of x% I know what to do. However, when it comes to real examples of mortgages and credit cards, I can't work out what the sum I need to do is. I'm still slightly baffled about the interest charged me when I was a day late paying my credit card off in full in March.

Today, the BBC carried a story about a loanshark. It includes the following statement about someone who borrowed £1000:

"...to pay £49 a week over 60 weeks, making the total amount he had to
repay £2,940 at 917% APR."

Now, if we approximate 60 weeks to a year, then surely that's an annual interest rate of no more than 294%. The quoted APR isn't even in vaguely the right ballpark.

So... have I completely failed to understand APR ? (Wikipedia's page on the subject didn't really help with the definition.) Or is the BBC publishing unmitigated wank in the name of investigative journalism ?

Edit It turns out I'd failed to understand APR, and the BBC is cleared in this instance.