KimyReizeger

he is charging people for specific lessons on 'effortless mastery', which I can't see any other credentials for other than reading a book...

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

I am offering tuition from someone who has worked through the process and now regularly experiences 'Effortless Mastery' in action.

I used to read Q until I sent in a question for Sting and he told me to "fuck off".

Cunt.

Kept the issue though.

What was the question?

buy the book and don't waste your money taking lessons from a guy who will basically be ripping you..off?!

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

a degree in music isnt the sort of thing most valued by local covers bands...

.

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?

Pretend to be a student and horse into RGU.

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

MINDFUCK TIME!

Look at the chick in the middle, but look at the pics on either side to make her change direction.

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

. I wish they'd pick comedians that aren't in the tried and tested roster though, most of the ones kicking about the telly are dire.

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.

the ultimate aim is to play to six people in drummonds.

.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Doesn't seem unreasonable for a leading global charity.

The director of Oxfam gets around 100,000 a year.

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 think it's more a suspicion of misrepresentation.

If you sign up with one of the manically grinning dancers on the high street and agree to give, say, 5 a month to Charity X, how much of that is going to the charity and how much is paying for the guy/girl who just accosted you on the high street? I never, ever sign up with chuggers and prefer to keep my charitable donations private and on my own terms.

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.

I don't mind donating but if it's to pay a wage..... I'm not interested.

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?

this is very true for the "top" charities, off the top of my head im thinking about the oxjam gigs that are organised for oxfam, which you are right are very inventive, and successful.

but there are hundreds of less well known charities that employ television adverts as seemingly their only means for funding, concerning these charities, one MAY be dubious to where the money is going.

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.

I would guess that those effective managers you speak of and at least some of those dynamic personnel collect decent wages for their efforts.

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 disagree. I think people are fairly quick to part with their cash in the name of a good cause, but asking them to commit to continually donating again and again is different.

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.

Without researching further I would guess that those effective managers you speak of and at least some of those dynamic personnel collect decent wages for their efforts. Again, I don't have a problem with that as such, but it ties into my whole uneasy feeling about the way these organisations are run, how the money is collected and where it is going.

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 agree with the above, but what i think Robert is trying to say is that there are so many of these adverts compared to the past, and since many of the charities have similar aims, it is difficult to know which one(s) to support.

I don't think he's torn between supporting animal rights group A or B.

Rather:

I'm all for charity, but to me charity is an act of kindness at the giver's prerogative. It should be the person dictating how much they give and when, not the charity telling me how much my current generosity bill is.

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:

when a charity becomes too much like a business you should start asking questions about it

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).