Mixed guest musings

A new Abstract is long overdue, for which I apologise, and herewith present you with a mishmash of musings.

Firstly, originally from my friend and colleague Susie, musings on what people see in their 'mind's eye' if they have been blind since they were born. I think this is a very interesting question, but unfortunately don't know anyone who is blind to ask them. Can they imagine colours? And if they can, are they necessarily the same way a sighted person does? Come to think of it, do two sighted people visualise colours in the same way as each other?? The direction of these thoughts perhaps takes one back to solipsism and the very first Urban Abstract I ever posted (solipsism apparently being the philosophical idea that it might be the case that nothing outside one's own mind actually exists, and even if it does, one can never conclusively determine that it does because one only has one's own mind and experiences to draw on!)

Secondly, also from Susie and principally her experiences on the tube system in London, why do people tend not to follow the simplest of functional rules in modern Urban society? For example, walking out of 'no exit' gates, not moving right down the carriage when asked to and walking on the right/left of connecting walkways when signs instruct them to walk on the left/right. For my part, I suspect in the majority of cases it is because it is most convenient for the perpetrator (at the expense of others). But I do remain puzzled sometimes, for instance I do recall seeing a shop recently which had two doors, one with a large sign saying "Please use other door --->" and yet I saw more than one person struggling to open this locked door with the sign on!

Finally, from my brother Steve, we have the ponderings regarding social norms, in particular how one responds when thanked for doing something. Often in America, you will get a 'you're welcome' when you thank someone, but over here frequently there is nothing, save for perhaps a grunt or a silent smile. Why is this? Does it signify something related to the national psyche? I'm not sure how prevalent it is in cultures around the world but would hazard a guess that it is more common to say something than not.

Electric/fields

I attended a bushcraft weekend in July, where we did a bit of ‘roughing it’ and learning how to live ‘at one with nature’. One of the people who were running it was a young-ish woman.

During one of the group conversations we were having about natural living, she made the claim that she “lives a life without electricity”. This seemed plausible at that point, given that she was quite handy with these outdoorsy techniques and apparently lodged in a building connected to the nearby farmhouse (an old barn?)

However, later on I spied her flipping open a clamshell mobile phone, and immediately wondered where she charges it up. Further, she also discussed in detail a bath that she had taken recently which warms itself back up so that you can bathe for extended periods.

Granted, these points don’t necessarily mean that she has an electricity supply in her principal dwelling, however I would forcefully argue that it does mean that she is not “living a life without electricity”.

What’s the point of all this? Well, ultimately I wondered if there are enough people out there who could genuinely live and survive if electricity were to suddenly be withdrawn on a global scale (e.g through some sort of Armageddon-type event)? Because whilst there are maybe a decent chunk of people who make the above claim, the reality of their lives may be somewhat different!

Rubbish banter

An email went around the office a few weeks ago from the group secretary on the subject of rubbish receptacles, in advance of our forthcoming office relocation.

One of the sentences in the email was something like:

“On the West side of the lifts you will see a large wheelie-bin; this is in fact a skip.”

My immediate thought was that it must be either a wheelie-bin or a skip but could not be both! When I walked past it later that morning, I looked at it and concluded that it was a large black wheelie-bin and not – in fact – a skip.

I wondered what the cryptic sentence in the secretary’s email meant, and concluded that her definition of ‘skip’ was by reference to function rather than form (i.e. a skip is a temporary purpose-placed rubbish dumping unit that will be removed once it has served the specific purpose). By contrast, my own definition of skip is the physical one (i.e. large metal open-topped box with the distinctive shape for loading on and off the back of a lorry).

Although I haven’t thought about it in great detail as yet, I cannot really imagine many situations where different people can have such mismatches in their noun definitions – can any other Urban observers enlighten me? Or even come up with other nouns which are principally defined with reference to function?

Dilemma at the urinals

In a bar in central London not so long ago – went to use the toilet, and there was an attendant guy in there with all the usual paraphernalia – fragrances, sweets, soaps, combs (I think?). Normally when I use the urinals it’s about 50:50 whether I wash my hands or not and depends on various factors like degree of splashback felt, how much of a hurry I’m in, whether anyone else would see me leaving without doing so, etc.

But whenever there is a guy there, it immediately comes down to one thing only – if I have a pound coin I will wash them and if I don’t then I do not – cannot! The former because knowing that the custodian of the sinks knows that ablutions were avoided is just too much (and potentially feeling the eyes like daggers in the back when exiting); the latter because taking his services and then not paying may well whip him up into some sort of frenzied rage (or at the very least seems ungrateful).

On this particular occasion I had a pound so I allowed him to soap me up, turn the tap on and off, and hand me towels. When I rejoined my friends I was castigated for doing so because it only ‘encourages’ them. I had not thought about it from this angle before – as I understand it they don’t get any fixed wage so I thought that as many people as possible should pay them for their services.

But perhaps this type of vocation is more akin to begging – if these are services that no-one actually wants then maybe they shouldn’t be ‘guilted’ into paying for them!

I would like to canvass views from other Urban observers on the issue of trendy bar toilet attendants.

Expression impression

I was thinking about school days recently and I recalled a friend and I each being able to do a recognisable impression of someone in the year below simply by pulling a certain facial expression. Absolutely no words or bodily actions were required.

I’m sure he cannot have walked around 24/7 with exactly that expression on his face, for that would not allow him to exhibit the whole range of emotions that humans are capable of displaying.

So what was special about that particular expression? Or perhaps it was that his facial structure lent itself to falling naturally into that sort of position? Does anyone else know of anyone who can be successfully mimicked using just one facial position? If so, what do you think is the reason behind the success of the impression?

Mirthful murderers

I was discussing current affairs with some friends last night. One noted that there had recently been uproar and revulsion in the US in reaction to a couple of students in Pennsylvania who posed for Facebook pictures dressed as victims of the Virginia Tech gun massacre.

One's initial reaction to this seems to be to concur with the revulsion (or at least mine was). But then the same friend noted that another of our friends attended a Hallowe'en party this year dressed as Harold Shipman. I recalled back to when I first heard about that, and I reacted with mirth.

But when you analyse the two situations with cold logic, what is the difference between them? Is it simply that different amounts of time have passed since the killings that brought respective notoriety? And if time is the key factor, how long do you have to leave it before revulsion turns to mirth? Is it a sliding scale? Or does the severity of the crime have to be thrown into the equation too??

A pearler of a conversation

Alright, so my Oystercard blue plastic wallet was getting a bit worn and falling apart. So much so, in fact, that once or twice the card itself had fallen out of the wallet into my pocket.

Therefore the next time I was passing through a tube station (which happened to be Temple), I went to the old guy at the window and had the following exchange with him:

Me: "Have you got any of those plastic Oystercard wallets?"
Him: "What's the magic word?"
Me: "Please?"
Him: [gets new wallet and pushes it under the glass, plus he may have said something like "That's better" but in honesty I cannot recall]
Me: "Thanks" [walks off]

I spent the remainder of the short walk to my office thinking about the exchange, and whether my opening question had been impolite. I have concluded that since I didn't actually know whether or not the guy had any wallets behind the desk, my question was a genuine 'fact-finder' and therefore didn't need to be adorned with P's or Q's. The guy probably thought I was directly asking for one (that would have been my next question) and therefore demanded politeness.

Does anyone concur or disagree with my analysis? If it is correct, I wonder what someone with (say) Asperger's Syndrome would do when asked for the magic word? Surely someone with such a strict literal interpretation of the world and language would be bemused, since they would not be able to make the link that the guy was inferring that they were asking for a wallet?!

I'll stop there.

Long-changed

I was in the queue in Stanford's book and map shop at lunchtime, and the woman in front of me bought a book worth £9.95. She paid with a ten pound note.

Now, I didn't actually see what happened immediately after, but then the woman started as if to leave the shop, then stopped and said that the shop man hadn't given her the 5p change. He said that he had, and she said, "No-o..." [where one's voice goes down, and then up again on the 'o']

His sardonic retort was, "I can give it to you again if you want?" The woman seemed happy with the outcome, took the 5p and left the shop.

If the woman was right, why wasn't she incensed by the man's sardonicism? If the man was right, then one of two queries arises:

- if it was a genuine error by the woman, does she have a memory shorter than a goldfish?

- if it was a deliberate ploy by the woman, is this a con trick which is easy to perpetrate, and if you accumulate the profit of 5p (or 1p for £X.99 items) from every cash transaction you ever make, you can earn good money?

Have any readers witnessed this first hand?

Frivolous funeral?

Whilst travelling up the M1 with my travelling companions the other weekend, I took the opportunity of snapping the following image:



There is no doubt that this is a sidecar hearse. Seeing this got me thinking about funerals in general, and (for example) whether opting to have your coffin transported to the burial site / crematorium in a vessel like this is entirely appropriate. Other instances of funeral frivolity might include tongue-in-cheek song requests and 'edgy' readings at the church. Would things like these upset certain mourners?

When you drill down to it, my key question is: should a person be able to decide on the format and procedures of their own funeral, given that they themselves will not have to endure the event? Alternatively, what is the relevance of the oft-repeated phrase: "It's what he would have wanted", given that 'he' no longer has any ability to appreciate anything through 'his' being deceased?

Please discuss.

Hostile handshakes

At work, I started a small project on a new client not so long ago. The week before last I went out to meet the client for the first time, and we had a short meeting discussing the project.

There are two main client contacts, and they both took us to the reception of their office to show us out. When I shook the hand of the junior one, he seemed to frown in the most thunderous way he could whilst giving me a penetrating stare. This struck fear in my heart - I immediately wondered if I had made some sort of gaffe in the hand-shaking method. Or perhaps my flies had worked themselves open? (see Abstracts passim)

Anyway, I tried to forget about it and left as normal. Last week we had a second meeting, and again when it came to departure outside my office, the guy did exactly the same thing! It was most disconcerting.

So I began wondering why he would do this. Is it to try to impose an intimidating persona upon the people he meets in the business arena? Or some facial tick associated with the action of shaking hands? I suppose I genuinely could have done something offensive on two separate occasions, however no-one else present seemed to notice! If I get the chance to shake his hand again I will probably try to mirror his expression and observe the results.

Sports graffiti

At the end of my row of houses is a boiler-room type block. There is some crude graffiti on the doors of this block, as expertly photographed by my phone:



Now, the key issues of the Abstract are:

(a) Did the graffiti artists spray sports symbols in earnest or were they ironically highlighting the evils of sports branding and the work of 'cool hunters' who work for these large brands? (in the past we have seen campaigns - I think Nike and possibly Sony may have been involved - where graffiti artists have been paid by the companies to spray expert corporate murals)

(b) If the latter, was the misspelling of 'Adaidas' and 'Hi-Teck' done with a mischievous tongue in cheek?

(c) Am I crediting the youth of East London with too much nous / level of social commentary? Are they simply poor-spelling louts with no better message to convey through spray than their favourite trainer designs?

Barry Scott

I idly noticed a new (I think) advert for Cillit Bang on the television the other day. It featured "Barry Scott" once again. Presumably most readers will be familiar with the old round of adverts, in which "Barry Scott" confidently introduced himself then extolled the virtues of the product in a booming voice.

This new advert seems to have taken the man and cranked up his voice even louder such that he is almost shouting unreasonably at us when describing what Cillit Bang can do.

A brief glance at Wikipedia confirms that the actor who plays "Barry Scott" is in fact called Neil Burgess and once played an axe murderer in The Bill.

The line of enquiry is as follows: why fabricate a celebrity endorser in the first place, given that such a non-existent celebrity can by his very non-existence carry no weight with consumers? Was it intended that the confidence of his self-introduction would actually subconsciously lead people to believe that he was a famous person?

And - more philosophically - is he now a bona fide celebrity through his non-existence?

Public stereos

I apologise for the absence of Abstracts of late, and further apologise that this one is a little uninspired and straight forward. The truth is, my Abstract radar is not working as well now as it was previously. I intend to make real efforts to rectify that, however.

Anyway, this Abstract focuses on the phenomenon I have witnessed over the last year or so, mainly on the bus or simply walking around my manor in East London. I refer to the practice of playing music (mp3 files?) through the loud speaker of one's mobile phone.

I can see the general reasoning behind personal stereos, whereby one can listen to loud-ish music without (a) using much juice or (b) disturbing others much.

However, this new practice seems to fall down on all counts! The music quality is hopeless through the puny loudspeakers (crackles, no bass), many onlookers are driven to distraction, and presumably the battery runs flat very quick.

So the motivation for this practice seems to be called into question. Is it a fad, against which no rational reasoning can be set? Is the main reason precisely
because it drives others to distraction? Or perhaps an innate desire in us all to share our musical taste with everyone?

Quotation marks

Exiting the local pub on Sunday evening, I noted a hand-written sign affixed to the wall next to the door.

It read (and I paraphrase):

Please show some "courtesy" to our neighbours and leave the pub "quietly"

The quotation marks were quite showy, in a 66 - 99 style.

This brings this Abstract directly to the main point - what are the different applications / interpretations for the quotation marks as used by Urban society these days?

My prima facie reading of those quotation marks is that the sign-writer is being sarcastic in the extreme, i.e. 'Show some so-called courtesy to our neighbours and leave quietly - by your own (possibly outrageous) definition of the word quiet', and is written in defiant response to some recent complaints about the noise.

However, it seems more likely that the landlord is actually asking for some courtesy and quietness of departure by the normal everyday definitions of those words. In which case: why the showy quotation marks???

I daren't ask the landlord (just like in the end I didn't dare to ask the 'Unlock Unlocking' shop man - I was honestly going to, but bottled it after waiting too long for him when he was on the telephone), therefore I must appeal to Urban interpreters in the wider world to provide explanations.

I await your comments with relish.

Pieces in the jigsaw

I was taking lunch with a colleague in a restaurant today; we were discussing what we were going to do directly after lunch. I said I intended to go over to our other office to link up with a different colleague and 'pick up a jigsaw' from him.

My co-luncher paused momentarily, then asked: "What is it of?" I did not know what he meant, and so I asked for further clarification. There ensued a confused exchange, eventually resulting in him asking me whether I was 'well into my jigsaws'. This last query was the trigger for my realisation that we were talking about different objects.

And so this leads on to my enquiries arising:

- why on Earth is a 'jigsaw puzzle' normally truncated to 'jigsaw' when such conversational havoc can be wreaked?
- can anyone think of any other similar such confusing abbreviations?
- is it down to someone's conditioning how likely they are to assume one is talking about a 'jigsaw puzzle' when they say 'jigsaw' or is it innate?

How are you?

This Abstract's mundanity / blandness is - in my humble opinion - offset to a certain extent by the frequency of occurrence I have witnessed it out there in the Urban world.

The most recent instance was when I was sitting on the bus. The girl in front took a mobile phone call, her opening lines were as follows:

"Hello? Ahhh, hello X, how are you? Yeah, I'm fine thanks, how about you?"

What is the reason for this immediate repetition of the question? Is the first enquiry in actuality just a space filler because "Ahh, hello X" is too terse, followed by the proper question, the response to which is taken on board?

Or is it the case that the second enquiry is automatically tacked on to the answer "I'm fine thanks" because whenever one doesn't get the question in first, it would appear grossly rude to not ask the question back? That is, a double-ask seems a relatively minor indiscretion as compared to no ask at all, with the double-ask being the side-effect of the safety net.

If anyone else has been on the receiving end of this 1-2 before, how have they responded at the second time of asking? I have not always been sure what is best form, because to give the same direct answer a second time kind of highlights the preposterous nature of the conversation up to that point!!

Guest Abstract

The following Abstract was submitted to me by my good friend Paul Spreadbury, so I thought I would share it with everyone. Thanks to Paul for his musings

"...whilst drinking with my football buddies last week i found myself contemplating thoughts along your lines...

There is one lad in the group of 12 of us who is the butt of all jokes. he is an easy target, and in fact seems to play up if not revel in this role within the group.

I cast my mind back to our school days and the comparisons with our very own Massy were clear to see. Another who 'played up' to the role within the group.

So, after further thoughts, i came up with this deliberation..

In every group, whether it be social, work or otherwise, is there always an easy target who faces the jibes, jokes and pranks, and moreover, is this person one who likes the role, feels comfortable in this role within the group and even perhaps creates this role for themselves with their actions (not neccessarily pre-meditated)?

I would welcome your comments on my thoughts..."

Faulty zipper - criminal act?

Yesterday I was wearing a pair of grey trousers that have a zipper which tends to work itself open if left unchecked. I'm not sure why the zipper does that.

I was in the queue for coffee at work, and facing away towards the seating area staring absent-mindedly into the middle distance. Following a couple of years of ownership of these trousers, it has become second nature to periodically reach down and rectify the zipper.

So without even consciously deciding to move my arm, it had grasped the zipper and pulled it up. Then I had a moment of self-awareness and realised that a woman seated at a table about 20 feet away was partially scowling at me. I am guessing that from her position, it looked like I had grabbed my crotch for no good reason whilst facing her directly!

No further action was taken, I got my coffee and returned to my desk. But I projected a 'worst case' scenario outcome, and found it possible to contemplate that I could have had a complaint levelled against me for sexual harrassment.

So the conclusion of this blog is as follows: there are some crimes for which it seems possible to argue that intent or negligence needs to be proved in order for the crime to have occurred, but I suspect that this is not a universal view.

Put another way - do you think I was actually sexually harrassing that woman, notwithstanding the fact that I didn't intend to?

What I am facing - will it shape my future?

This is the view that is directly above my computer screen, which I therefore look at many hundreds of times in every week:

• The postcard featuring the queen was given to me upon the occasion of my birthday by Kaye Yip a couple of years ago. I recently added the oriental moustache in a moment of ennui.


• The mulleted footballer was part of some internal hate mail sent to me when I had long hair myself. A friend of a friend (who I did not know very well) enclosed it along with a note saying that my hair 'looked shit'.


• The photograph is of Kate and me on stage in the function room of the Savoy Hotel during a works do. For some reason I had been bigged up in my department as a huge fan of Chesney Hawkes and so when 'The One and Only' came on the sound system I was obliged to go up front and sing along to it.

This Urban Abstract is essentially an enquiry into whether what we become accustomed to / exposed to over a period of time will shape how we develop in the future - and what the consequences of that can be.

For instance - will I be more likely to veer towards monarchism, keeping short hair, and being nostalgic about Chesney Hawkes now that these images have been impressed upon me so many times? For the record, I think the answer may well be yes, although I am not an impartial observer in this case.

Furthermore, if the answer is yes, just think how so many apparently random paths are interwoven throughout time, which combine and influence our future behaviour (which in turn goes on to influence more events, and so on)!

In a roundabout way, I think I have just convinced myself that I am a proponent of determinism! See here for further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Can't be arsed

I am delving back into the sands of time for this post. Furthermore, I am delving into a third party Urban Abstract - thanks go to David Steel for the observation of the Abstract (and apologies to him for any inaccuracies - please comment if there are any material factual errors).

David was visiting his friend from university at her home in St Helens. They were riding a bus into town, whereupon a funeral cortege interrupted their journey. The general slowness of the cortege caused the surrounding traffic to go slow for a number of minutes.

Of two lads sat behind David on the bus, one commented: "I can't be arsed with that funeral."

Given that the lad wasn't required to expend any extra energy as a result of the funeral intrusion, I find it intriguing that he couldn't 'be arsed' with it. My own interpretation of the phrase extends to being compelled to act on something because of its significance. But is this interpretation at odds with urban society at large?

All comments welcome as ever.