scottyboy

Ieng Thirith died like a month ago. Was coming here for points, but turns out I didn't put her back in my team for this year. but http://time.com/4007737/ieng-thirith-khmer-rouge-obituary/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11823587/Ieng-Thirith-Khmer-Rouge-leader-obituary.html

http://www.joe.co.uk/sport/vietnamese-player-banned-for-six-months-for-reckless-lunge-video/15775 Polish player gets a retrospective 6 month ban for a challenge (every so tenuously compared to the Luke Shaw incident in the article). (Maybe better for the ridiculous news thread but) the fact that this was picked up by the UK site (dubiously referred to as a "foreign newspaper") is also news, apparently: http://thethao.thanhnien.com.vn/bong-da-viet-nam/an-phat-que-ngoc-hai-len-bao-nuoc-ngoai-53548.html (Daily Mail is also mentioned as covering another guy getting a 28-game ban for a leg breaker but can't find that.)

FWIW: I'd never been The Moorings, and I indeed was probably under the impression it was a niche punk/rock/metal bar with an odd pirates-cum-old-mannie-pub theme. And when I saw the name Krakatoa I immediately thought "flamboyant cocktail bar with equally flamboyant Pacific Island theme. Dafuq." However, after reading the articles and Facebook post, and trying to reconcile the two notions in my mind, I'm now stuck with the image of The Lua Bar, Escape from Monkey Island's redecorated/revamped version of The Scummm Bar ("They've done something horrible to the SCUMMM Bar!" bemoans Guybrush). Which sounds awesome. I'd check it out (for the first time) if I were in Aberdeen.

I was going to put it in the classics thread but: I also got through Thomas De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater. There's tonnes of Western pop-culture about the use of all kinds of hard drugs, from Naked Lunch to Trainspotting (and that just about heroin), but I was curious about 19th-century opium (it having huge importance to 19th-century Asian history, in which I have a bit of an interest; it's also central to the majestic novel Sea of Poppies I posted about recently) and it was enticingly slim. The first half is a patchwork autobiography. The guy seems to have thought of a lot of himself, and was enormously verbose and waffle-y I think even by standards of the day. So this part was a bit of an ordeal to get through. The second part, about both the "pleasures" and the "pains" of opium was a lot more worthwhile. Some interesting bits about getting high and then going to take in the opera (I'm vaguely reminded of the legalise-drugs thread a while back on here...). OK-ish.

I read and watched both versions in my teens (again...), and thought both were pretty dire. Not much to add, /cool story

31 for me. Also slowed down a fair bit but still pretty sure I'll scrape 50.

I think all that stuff has to be some 19th century version of, say, having all the minutiae about police bureacracy, or the drug trade or the port system in The Wire. It helps bring the whole thing to life and to make it about something real and massive. That there's just so freaking much of it, and all about just sperm whales, is what doesn't make sense; at least to a 21st century reader with Google and short on time.

All that stuff about whale biology and the mechanics of whaling in Moby Dick is just nuts.

When I read Everything is Illuminated (I think in my teens) I thought the first chapter written by Alex was incredible; but the novelty wore off a bit and rest of the book just didn't live up to the profound masterpiece suggested by the press soundbites. The film (good) is pretty faithful to the book IIRC but it's only the actual in-Ukraine narrative and ditches the surreal sections Lemonade mentioned (and about which I remember nothing). His other, later main book, Extremely Loud ad Incredibly Close, I did really enjoy.

Possibly, possibly. I'm basically going with what gets published by Penguin Classics vs Penguin Modern Classics (vs. not published by either of those). If that's not the ultimate arbiter of what are "bonafide, nailed-on classics" then I dunno what is... (er, Morrissey's autobiography excepting). Though a book has to be out of copyright - and thus a certain age - before it will get published by any "classics" publisher, I guess.

I read Madame Bovary this year. I wouldn't recommend it. If we're talking Classics-with-a-capital-C I'd have thought they should be pre-20th century. Of the few I've read, I'd go with Crime and Punishment, mentioned by 'droid above. I also read Anna Karenina for my Higher personal essay thing and it wasn't bad; probably better if you have an interest in the 19th century Russian aristocracy though... Les Miserables was another doable doorstop, but I got about 900 pages and halfway through, thought I might take a break and just never went back to it. I saw Treasure Island listed above - I've read it a few times and think it might be my favourite 19th century novel, fuck y'all. Shakespeare is probably the only pre-20th century writer I really dig, but I'm kind of against the notion of "reading" him, and I think this is why people just don't get him at first (in school, damn near invariably). People rave about the writing on The Wire, Sopranos etc., and a hardcore fan might sit down with just the scripts; but who would do so without first actually watching it, probably several times? I've never met a Shakespeare film (heresy?), history or tragedy at least, that I didn't really like. 20th century modern classics, though, and the list could be a fair bit bigger: any of Hemmingway's best (Old Man..., For Whom the Bell Tolls; A Farewell to Arms); The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden; All Quiet on the Western Front; 100 Years of Solitude; Brave New World and A Clockwork Orange (both good shouts above) are some I've loved most, off the top of my head. I saw Tom Wolfe mentioned above, so if he's allowed: Bonfire of the Vanities and A Man in Full. Both incredible and really sort of 19th century, massive-scope, classic style.

The Detroit Cobras - My Baby Loves the Secret Agent

Pity about the "must be human" rule: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/29/tama-the-cat-3000-attend-elaborate-funeral-for-japans-feline-stationmaster

I think I'm around 30 also, after finally pulling ahead of schedule in May. I think I'll just post up a list and some review highlights at the end of the year though.

"occupation", as opposed to "boots on ground", to me implies an invasion and some kind of occupation government. Since the government in Iraq is relatively friendly to the west and actively fighting IS I can't see why it just wouldn't be (welcome) ground troops. The government in Syria, Assad's, is again actively fighting IS and it's local variants so we're again not going to overthrow it to strike at IS. No chance of ground troops alongside the Syrian government though, since again a year ago the talk was indeed of intervening against Assad (and again, the fact that the moderate rebellion failed, and the extremist replacement is now the greater enemy is an illustration of what a disaster that lack of action was). Ground troops (particularly if we're just talking around the Kurdistan front, which we probably are) or no isn't that much of an issue I'd say, in comparison with all that (other than for the troops who might have to risk their necks, but that's kinda their job). There is already a full-blown ground war on multiple fronts in the middle-east, we are already involved militarily (air-raids) and if we were to withhold troops were they to be needed, the implication is we'd be letting Kurdistan (or the Kurdish frontlines, even) and/or Baghdad fall to IS. Doesn't sound preferable to me.

Full-scale occupation (of where exactly?), surely not; boots-on-ground, in Iraq, could well be. For the second point, yeah, basically. Not going to claim deep knowledge of Middle-Eastern politics, demographics, etc. but surely the outlines are pretty uncontroversial: the rise of IS is tied up not just in killing/oppression of muslims but Sunni ones particularly. Bassad (el-presidente, Syria) may be nominally secular but he and his government is identified with Shia rule/oppression of Sunnis. Ditto with IS (being Sunni extremists, particularly) and the pro-Shia sectarian Iraqi gov which happened to be in power when everything kicked off there last year. There are also the Iranian fighters (Shia) who are currently fighting IS and it seems committing atrocities of their own. Neither the UK nor US wanted to arm the moderate/secular Syrian rebels when they were as strong as, or stronger than, anyone. Nor did they want to conduct air strikes or even just shoot down Syrian gov. aircraft; not even after the crossing of Obama's "red line" (chemical attacks). Others were willing to aid the sectarian extremists, so that's we've got in Syria now. We might still have a more localised Iraqi IS but surely not as strong and with as much pan-national sectarian appeal.

By "war" you mean "ground troops"? We're already bombing IS in Iraq, no? I'm not in the UK at the moment, but I tend to think the opposite. Cameron wanted to ?(at least) bomb Syrian gov forces a year or so ago after the chemical strikes, and both Labour and much of the Tories voted against it. So not only did the the Syrian gov. get to continue bombing kids and sectarian cleansing, but now the moderate opposition there is gone and in place is an extremist, sectarian bunch of armies across Syria and Iraq (and hitting elsewhere, ofc); not only that, but the "secular", chemical bombing dictator is now quietly preferable to that. I think a large part of the blame for ISIS can be laid, as well as at the doors of the Syrian and sectarian Iraqi goverments, at much of the Labour and Tory parties, and Obama.

I'm with Kernel Loaf on this season being largely crap, though haven't read the books (the 1 or 2 book spoilers that I thought I'd seen I was actually looking forward to and yet didn't materialise, odd). everything spread too thin, as discussed above; and probably too many established characters dead or just fallen off the proverbial earth; a fair whack of stuff just not making much sense (as above, the sisters vs Jaime and Bron collision; the rich slavers fielding an army of terrorist guerillas more numerous, disciplined, and suicidal than the Unsullied; Stannis declaring to besiege a much bigger army possessing horses and then being surprised that it had other ideas). The whole religious zealots taking over King's Landing plot just totally bored me for whatever reason. No opinions on the latest *shocking* sexual humiliation scene? Regards the last scene, I dunno, not sure how he could credibly get out of that. If does, surely his wolf must have something to do with it (how come it didn't come running in the first place?)

I think Christopher Lee, BB King and Terry Pratchett have all been in my past teams.

I was going to come back with a code shortcut but see Neepheid got it. I would add that chord 6 of the major key is the chord 1 of the equivalent minor key (and chord 3 of the minor key is chord 1 of the equivalent major key) which may make things easier to figure out in different keys. I also think that you can simply play/think of a minor chord in the place of the diminished one (conversely, these codes assume one is playing basic triads, and things are a bit more complicated if one wants to use extended chords).

Nope, wrong Remember the keys are the same, as you said: literally the same. You would still have C-F-G in your Am key progression. And, ahem, it's probably going to have an Am in it. Both the keys of C (major) and A minor have the exact same notes and chords (C major and A minor are found in both, just doing different things). The C major progression might well only have C, F, G. The A minor progression is not just going to have C, F, G: it's surely going to have Am; it might well have C and G, but most likely after Am is probably Dm (minor) and Em (minor). D minor and E minor can also be used in C major progressions. The key is again which chord is the start/end point. If writing/listening to any bog-standard rock/pop song in Am the first chord is pretty much going to be Am, and everything is going to come back ("resolve") to the sonic home base of Am (even if you don't literally play Am at the end of the riff, the next bridge/chorus/riff is going to start on Am; when you windmill the last chord to fade out the track, Am). C major, end (and probably start) on C major, respectively. Jazzers don't start on the home chord but again, all-importantly, end on it. The archetypal jazz progression is 2-5-1; for blues, and probably rock/pop it's 1-4-5, coming back to chord 1 to start again ad-nauseum. Again, the root note/chord is what's important, as it affects what role each (otherwise identical) note plays. But for any relative major and minor key (e.g. C major and A minor) the notes and basic major/minor tonalities of the chords are the same and it just depends what you emphasise that makes the key. Things get more complicated (and actually easier to understand as a whole!) if you look into the whole modal system (trying to avoid just repeating the mega-long posts somewhere above in the thread).

I'm also reading Terry Pratchett (one of the last ones), for the first time in a few years and not enjoying it as much as I used to. The Colour of Magic I didn't think much of the first time though... I originally read them pretty much backwards and I think I probably lost interest when I got into the first dozen or so (!). The ones I enjoyed most (in my teens) where probably in the numbers 20+.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32943015 Pete the Jakey