|
|
|
Wow, lit matches! Wow, how cool. Guess they got lit and stayed lit. Oh, the bliss of it all! (Bottom, right, when you click on "Services" )
Modified by Premie_Spouse at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 12:18:40
|
|
|
|
...or is his head elongated?
|
|
|
|
I'm not skilled or experienced at all in the wonderful world of corporate business. Do companies really follow up on wordy come-ons like this? These guys promise the world. They're so wise. positively superhuman! Sign me up. Advise me immediately. I am yours.
|
|
|
|
Select a topic from the following list: (1) Compare and contrast statements A and B: A: 'Only Through Me Does The World Go Forward Without Destroying Itself.' Prem Rawat, 1982.B: ‘I am not proposing solutions to world problems. I do not have any.’ Prem Rawat, 2005. (Hint: the answer is not that statement (a) employs bizarre capitalisation or that (b) is not very interesting.) (2) With reference to studies from Abnormal Psychology, examine the role of denial in 'Messianic delusional behaviour'. (3) Posing as Lord of the Universe whilst seeking financial gain from persons misled by that claim contravenes laws pertaining to ‘obtaining goods or services through fraudulent misrepresentation’ (UK Supply of Goods and Services Act, 1982). Discuss… (4) Is the following paragraph a pile of meaningless bollocks? ‘Economic development depends on a shared understanding of
competitiveness among business, government, and university leaders. We find that the microeconomic foundations of competitiveness are less understood than the broader macroeconomic, political, legal and social issues in development. Moreover, the role of the private sector in competitiveness, and the ways in which the private, public and university sectors can work together to boost productivity, represent important gaps in thinking and practice.’ (IEE, 2005) 2000 words, on my desk by Friday, please…
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 16:07:03
|
|
|
|
1,2 and 3 are just too complex to rationalise even within the context of post-post modernism and the inevitable quantum consciousness paradigm that supports it.The hypothetical 11 dimensions of brain stretching calculus neccessary to make ontologically supportable truth claims within this field are sadly still not enough to conceal the inevitable climbdowns,contradictions and naked delusion implicit in the content of assertions 1 to 3. However, statement no 4 might just be redeemable. Ahem. I propose the following analysis: It seems a lot of very clever people(government, academics, businessmen) don't understand the nature of competition...In support of this we are introduced to the ideas of the "macro" and the "micro" ecnonomy, both of which have a context within politics, the Law, and Society all of which in turn (we are assured) are in the process of development. Of the above two types of economy, it is the cognitional shortcomings of the micro economy vis-a-vis competion that is significant. Now the next bit is tricky... If only the private sector (is that the same as the micro economy?) would get a better understanding of what competition is and share their new found self-concept thus achieved with the public sector and the academics, we could immediately all get richer. Looking at the overall direction of the argument, I think it resduces to the immortal claim once uttered by my 5 year old daughter: If we had some bananas we could have some bananas and custard if we had some custard. Hmmm.My message to the tangled writer is:Render unto Caesar the bullshit that is Caesar's and unto god the bollox that is gods. Thanks for the assignment prof. Howd i do? Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
I know (because I've just been blissing out on the BBC shipping forecast, which happens in all civilised countries at 12.45 [post-midnight - is that am or pm?]) that it is now Saturday, GMT. Which means your project is late. Are you asking for an extension? I'm not saying your ideas lack value. I might even steal a couple for my future publishing career. But, apart from it's not being 2000 words (we'll call an amnesty on that), I basically still can't understand the fecker. See me on Monday (hic!)
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 20:25:42
|
|
|
|
Non intellegendum sed credendum est,o Magister! Vale Brynus (of the Ninth)
Modified by Bryn at Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 04:12:46
|
|
|
|
If we had some bananas we could have some bananas and custard if we had some custard. Brilliant !!
|
|
|
|
Looking at recent posts of then and now, and ev websites, it is more embarrassing than ever to admit to ever having had anything to do with the present incarnation of Rawat as video salesman and conference-hall organiser. At least in the early days, it was so mad it had to be true: a greasy, spotty teenager in a golden crown and western suit, who wouldn’t dream of running a soup kitchem like the krishas, and couldn’t construct a proper argument or teach shit, but whose meaning you could intuit by being ‘in the right place’. M was so clearly more right than the obvious-looking gurus of the seventies, with their El Greco Jesus faces, beards and sandals. And M twirled a flute on stage like a pantomine dame... So crazy, that you would never swallow it unless it was the Real Deal. (Young Nigel thinks: 'I can’t swallow it, therefore it is the Real Deal') Faulty algebra, or something? Now it just looks like Sun Myung's Moonies - M now too scared of his own past pronouncements to pronounce any more. Anyone remember: 'shout it from the rooftops - the lord is on the planet'? I'm trusting Hilltop to track that one down..
|
|
|
