KimyReizeger

Perhaps he's well-read in the subject and has practical experience of the techniques involved:

What was the question?

Presumably the same applies to learning piano, studying economics and speaking German.

Are you sure? I heard Point of Origin were taking on new graduates. Can anyone shed any light on this?

No, not necessarily for free, though I shouldn't expect printing a few sides of A4 could get very pricey. You know somewhere?

Yeah, I think you'd probably need an RGU computer account and whatnot. I'll give the library a go.

Hi, Does anyone know where I could print things in town? I know the internet cafe on market street is closed, but is there anywhere else? Books and Beans perhaps? Cheers

I have a certain even numbered series of patterns I do with my fingers, which runs something like this. The numbers represent my middle three fingers, with 1 being the forefinger. Give it a whirl! 1 2 3 (ascend) 3 2 1 (descend) 2 3 1 (start from the middle) 2 1 3 (start from the middle) 1 3 2 (start from the outside) 3 1 2 (start from the outside) I've done it since I was a kid and it's hard to portray how important these patterns are in maintaining my daily equillibrium and stable mental health. It's not just with fingers either; also relates to footsteps and the way I walk along the street, feelings in my body, muscle tenses and things like that. Oddly enough it's come in pretty handy for playing guitar. The annoying thing is, if I start it, I have to finish it!

Missing back plate otherwise fine: http://www.aberdeen-music.com/forums/equipment/58315-sale-ibanez-rg550.html

The really odd thing is if you look quickly and repeatedly from one side to the other. Everything goes completely out!

Yup.These flimsy pedestals we've constructed for jesters to 'be funny' upon, have well past their sell-by-date. Panel shows seem to promote poor comedians, yet also make good comedians seem bad, revelling in the kind of humour which takes the slimmest effort to process. David Mitchell may indeed be the worst perpetrator, popping up all too frequently on TV and radio, churning out unimaginative, safe 'satire' and pre-written gags.

I always thought the show was a fairly pathetic clamour for cheap laughs, pointless one-upmanship and pedestrian satire.

None of them facilitate much more than guitarists and vocalists, to be honest.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Doesn't seem unreasonable for a leading global charity.

Where did you get that information?

Regarding the guys out on the street. It's very unlikely I'd agree to subscribe to anything whilst I'm tramping around the town, shopping or whatever. However, the practice must raise revenue, considering how many there are lurking around.

Oxfam Unwrapped plays on the very idea that we want to determine where our money goes. It has been very successful, and I think answers some of the concerns raised by Hog and Robert. Personally I think the scheme simplifies the charitable process, creating a sham closeness between giver and receiver. 'Rather than put my money into a big pot which sustains a charity's many varied operations, I literally paid for a goat that fed two families for a fortnight'. It seems arrogant to think I know better than Oxfam where money is most needed. In a way Unwrapped turns vital, life-giving resources into conscience-clearing christmas gifts for the guilt-ridden. However, if it brings in cash, I've no real complaint. Have a look: Gift Ideas 6 - 20 - Charity Gifts | Oxfam Unwrapped

I've been told by reliable sources that this 'chugging' you speak off involves long hours in all weather for minimum wage. Sure, no-one likes being accosted on the street, but surely they deserve to get paid for standing around all day fundraising. And grinning? Oh the audacity! Give me a dour face and a mumble any day.

A lot of people seem to be of this mindset. Oxfam offer you the chance to determine where your money goes when you donate. You can buy goats, textbooks, seeds for farmers or educate a teacher if you really want. I personally wouldn't require this level of determination over where my money goes, preferring to believe that charities understand the situations they're dealing with better than me and therefore know how to spend the money better than I do. The whole idea that 'wages' = bad is just a little bit strange. Do you object to the idea that people should be paid to support the less fortunate?

Yes, Oxfam's 'Gift Aid' also springs to mind. Regarding your second point: Yes, 'MAY', the important word. I don't really think this is Robert's point either.

In my experience this is emphatically not the case. Rather, those running charitable operations tend to be committed, hard-working, experienced and dedicated. It's not something you go into for money.

I don't give any money to charities in monthly instalments. However, I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask people to donate a small portion of their monthly wages to a cause (selected by themselves) that they feel deserves it. A vague feeling of uneasiness based on no research is probably not the best grounds to base criticism (if you can call it that) on.

I don't think he's torn between supporting animal rights group A or B. Rather: He dislikes the notion that charities ask for money, and in monthly instalments. Obviously the idea of dowdy old women in drab George Street shops attempting to shift 3rd-hand 'hungry hippos' games is far more appealing and correct than the many varied and inspired methods top charities employ to sustain funding and services.

People aren't quick to part with cash therefore charities constantly need new and innovative ways to sustain funding. They don't get money by not asking, not accosting you on the street, not creating dramatic TV commercials... Moreover, given that they represent the world's poorest and neediest, I can think of many things which make me feel far more 'sick, dirty and disgusted'. I pretty much disagree with this aswell: Successful businesses get the most out from the minimum input. Charities need effective management, dynamic personnel and all the other hallmarks of business, (obviously minus the financial profit).