Two Stray Thoughts in a week / Bet you think that's pretty clever, don't you?

1. Unless I misheard the radio report on it, I gather that the USA delegates were so offended by remarks from the Canadian PM at a conference on the environment, that they're threatening not to reach an agreement on the issue of global warming. But if they're offended, wouldn't it suggest they feel that the remarks are without basis in fact ? In which case, shouldn't they sign ? Or do they want to prove right the person they're saying is wrong?

I hope I misheard.

2. In recent times, people seem strangely keen to use the word 'yourself' instead of the word 'you'. I'm guessing it's almost like a politeness thing, as the use of the second person singular can seem quite accusatory, but it's an odd thing, and I can do without it, really. Maybe yourself disagree.

3.I feel that Jeremy Clarkson and Brian Sewell share certain traits; both of them are men who have extremes of specialist knowledge in a particular field, but who have newspaper columns covering any old subject they fancy, despite the fact that their chosen approaches (Clarkson robust and manly in a teenage knee-jerk kind of way, Sewell artsy-farty in a chin-strokey BBC4 kind of way) don't entirely work when discussing issues such as immigration.

4. One of my favourite jokes:
Two men meet at a party.
First man : I'm writing a novel.
Second man: Really ? Neither am I.

5. Just arguing with myself in my head, and realising that point 3 above might smack of hypocrisy as the existence of my online stuff in itself suggests I see myself (not yourself - see 2, above) as some kind of expert on various matters. Such as the matter of whose opinions should be seen as valid ot not. Which is sort of true, but that's because I don't see why their opinions on subjects outside their area of expertise should be given the exposure they are as opposed to anyone else's. To which the voice in my head says 'ah well, Mr Clever, what's your area of expertise, then?' and to which I am forced to reply, after a pause, that it appears to be that of gainsaying my postulations, questioning my own ideas and motivations, and then admitting as much by writing up the internal dialogues, and what limited conclusions are reached as a result of this process.

And that, my friends, is not as easy as I make it sound.