Scotch on the rocks

[wishful thinker]

So it looks like the turkeys are going to vote for Christmas after all, and elect the SNP on Thursday.

I guess the tragi-comedy of a Scot in Westminster (Brown) opposed to a Scot in Edinburgh (Salmond) could prove entertaining, if it wasn't so sad.

BTW, happy birthday, UK, 300 not out (yet) 

[ahinton]

So it looks like the turkeys are going to vote for Christmas after all, and elect the SNP on Thursday.

I guess the tragi-comedy of a Scot in Westminster (Brown) opposed to a Scot in Edinburgh (Salmond) could prove entertaining, if it wasn't so sad.

BTW, happy birthday, UK, 300 not out (yet) 

Perhaps the most significant result of what happens in Scotland on Thursday will be in the percentage turnout. Perhaps the next most interesting thing will be to see if it is possible to extract evidence as to how many SNP-voting Scots put their cross in that place on the tactical basis of wanting to sever ties with Brown's Britain.

Anyway, Brown will soon assume his position unopposed, it seems. I don't think he wants to see the end of the union but I will expect him in time to reveals his desire to sever ties with the monarchy by disposing of them and turning UK into a republic with him as President; he'll have to do this before taking over the rest of the EC, I think.

Whatever happens in our Brown unpleasant land under his future "leadership", we can be almost sure that the phrase "there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes" will be amended by substituting "are only two certainties" with "is only one certainty" and removing "death and"...

I think that, when Brown does take up his post as Führer, Britain will need all the "wishful thinking " it can get...

Best,

Alistair

[pianowolfi]

Scotch on the rocks? YUMMY  (Why can't you change smileys in size? )

[pianistimo]

this is all very interesting because didn't the monarchy start with scotland, then turned to ireland, and then britain?  or was it ireland, scotland, britain.  anyways it was overturned three times.

don't know much about this brown fellow.  i didn't realize he had such high political aspirations.  or is it a sort of trade that people think he has made.  'if you get rid of the monarchy, we'll make you the head of the EC.'

[dnephi]

Why do turkeys vote for Christmas?  And what has that to do with the Scots?

And, more specifically, the Chiva and Igneous?

[pianistimo]

well, as i read it 'christmas' will be short and then there will be a sort of disruption of the entire world.  the EC doesn't just want portions of the earth.  it wants the entire thing.  in which case - i don't think brown would be the 'one.'  whoever it is will need a pretty large army and control the world bank. 

as i see it - cameron is for the same ideals as winston churchill and margaret thatcher. unfortunately, that is seen as passe now.  so - in effect - the whole churchill mentality and 'save the crown' is falling on deaf ears. 

we'll have a new 'crown.'  just a very strange thing to see that biblical prophecy is timely and doesn't miss a beat.  too bad people who aspire to political elitism don't recognize the warning signs.  if they did - they'd back out now while they still ahve the chance.

[ahinton]

don't know much about this brown fellow.  i didn't realize he had such high political aspirations.  or is it a sort of trade that people think he has made.  'if you get rid of the monarchy, we'll make you the head of the EC.'

You don't know how lucky you are! These particular high political aspirations are meant as a joke, in essence, but one could say in this particular instance that "there's no joke without fire"; in other words, the man's revealed himself as ruthless and determined and yet has had to wait in the political wings for ten years, so who knows just how much power he wants? He has been one of the most damaging Chancellors of the Exchequer in British history and only partly because he is also one of the longest-standing ones; his autocratic stances are unlikely to endear themselves to many, yet at present there looks to be little credible opposition.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

well, as i read it 'christmas' will be short and then there will be a sort of disruption of the entire world.  the EC doesn't just want portions of the earth.  it wants the entire thing.  in which case - i don't think brown would be the 'one.'  whoever it is will need a pretty large army and control the world bank.

Turkeys voting for Christmas is a euphemism - just think about its meaning rather than taking it so literally (as is you wont!). Do also bear in mind that Hitler didn't need a "large army" until 1939 - and look at what he'd already achieved without one by then...

as i see it - cameron is for the same ideals as winston churchill and margaret thatcher. unfortunately, that is seen as passe now.  so - in effect - the whole churchill mentality and 'save the crown' is falling on deaf ears. 

Cameron, Churchill and Thatcher certainly didn't share that many ideals; that's not the reason why the first of them is passé - and I'm not sure that he is so anyway, as he seems more lacking in credibility and substance than actually antediluvian.

we'll have a new 'crown.'

It takes but a single letter substitution to go from "crown" to "Brown"...

biblical prophecy is timely and doesn't miss a beat.

It was only a matter of time, was it not, before you gave in to that one! God evidently has deaf ears or is disinterested or both each time you say "lead us not into temptation"! Gordon Brown may come from a Scottish presbyterian background, but that does not prove that there is a shred of evidence in the Bible about the Brown government in 21st century Britain. It would not even surprise me to discover that Brown's own belief in God nowadays extends no farther than whether He might be a useful potential appointee to the position of foreign secretary once he himself assumes the reins as prime minister.

It's you that's missing a beat here, Susan - in fact, not just a single beat but an entire Mahler symphony's worth...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

assuming that brown does take control - what then?  are you saying that he won't immediately go for the EC monetary standard?  basically, when you give up your money - your country is gone.

[wishful thinker]

Pianistimo dear, nice to you see on form - how you managed in the bat of eye to turn our devolutionary conundrums into armeggedon is truely amazing 

Now, just to put a few things straight.  "Brown" is one Gordon Brown, currently Chancellor of the Exchequer (national treasurer) and the man who believes it his right to become Prime Minister when Tony Blair goes.

He (Brown) is widely credited with being the one who put pay to Blair's ambition to take Britatin into the Euro.  So I doubt that we will be joining under his premiership (and the days of the Euro as we know it are numbered anyway).

As to the British Monarchy having been overthrown 3 times; again not true.  Charles II was executed in 1649 following the English Civil War, and James II ran away in 1688 (the "Glorious Revolution").

Following the death of Elizabeth of England in 1603, the crown passed to King James VI of Scotland, who was then also James I of England.  He ruled two separate Kingdoms, which were polically united "forever" on this day in 1707 (after more than a century of joint head of state.

Ireland was conquered in the middle ages (didn't bring any King to the table).

[ahinton]

Now, just to put a few things straight.  "Brown" is one

Two would, quite simply, be unthinkable...

Gordon Brown, currently Chancellor of the Exchequer (national treasurer)

As distinct from "national treasure" (and it doesn't get more "distinct" than that...)

He (Brown) is widely credited with being the one who put pay to Blair's ambition to take Britain into the Euro.  So I doubt that we will be joining under his premiership

To be fair, there's always been doubts expressed about UK joining the Euro and these have been expressed by many people besides Brown; Sweden and Denmark (also among the first 15 EU member states) also remain outside the Eurozone.

(and the days of the Euro as we know it are numbered anyway).

That's debatable. Certainly, when the member states 16-25 are permitted to join that mechanism (not that most of them will, in all probability), any joining member states will be likely to reduce the Euro's value, since the economies of all of those 10 states (as well as the two most recently joined members) are way behind those of the first 15; also Sarkozy in France has indicated his desire to devalue the Euro in any case. Neither circumstance is necessarily a harbinger of the currency's total demise, however and, if the Eruo did indeed collapse altogether, the conseqeunces for all world economies will be pretty serious.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

assuming that brown does take control - what then?  are you saying that he won't immediately go for the EC monetary standard?  basically, when you give up your money - your country is gone.

Not sure what you mean by "give up" here; the 12 EU states who adopted the Euro aren't "gone", are they?!

When the US dollar falls to the rate of 10 to the British pound, I'll come over to PA and personally sort out your extraordinary allegations of Biblical prediction of current and immediate future political and economic conditions in the EU; if you're lucky, I might even buy you a new bikini to wear while I'm doing that (although I'd draw the line at presenting you with a pole as well)...

Best,

Alistair

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

Alistair,

I am not suggesting that the Euro will "collapse" as such, but the one size fits all nature of it will eventually force the club med countries out.  Italy is a prime candidate, and Spain and Greece aren't far behind.

This would be no bad thing, if you remember when Britain was forced out of the ERM in 1992; she was able to follow her own policies and there has been continuous growth ever since (though the extent to which that has enriched the lives of the ordinary citizens is, as I am sure you will agree, a moot point).

Here is an article from yesterday's paper https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/30/ccview30.xml

 

[ahinton]

Alistair,

I am not suggesting that the Euro will "collapse" as such, but the one size fits all nature of it will eventually force the club med countries out.  Italy is a prime candidate, and Spain and Greece aren't far behind.

This would be no bad thing, if you remember when Britain was forced out of the ERM in 1992; she was able to follow her own policies and there has been continuous growth ever since (though the extent to which that has enriched the lives of the ordinary citizens is, as I am sure you will agree, a moot point).

Here is an article from yesterday's paper https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/30/ccview30.xml

 

Yes, I realise that you weren't actually predicting the Euro's demise as such, though France and Spain still advertise many goods respectively in in francs and pesetas despite there having been none for years and so your "Club Med" côterie might have to include France as well and, if Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Portugal (all, as you know, among the first 15 EU member states) all abandon the Euro for whatever reason, its credibility as the common currency of only 7 remaining out of 27 member states will likely be irreparably dented and its future will look pretty perilous, I reckon - especially if Sarkozy and Co. will also already have ensured its devaluation before this happens.

I do have my own doubts about the future of the Euro, based principally upon the fact that those EU member states that use it have widely differing economies.

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

Yes, in Italy, to where I travel regularly, till receipts still give both currencies.

The lira was originally meant to be the value of a pound of silver, the same as the English pound.  Interestingly, in the Latin monetary union that lasted up to WWI, the Lira traded at the equivalent to the Franc.  After this inflation took hold, which was curbed somewhat by Mussolini, who, on August 18, 1926, declared that the exchange rate between lira and pound would be £1 = 90 lire, although the free exchange rate had been closer to 140-150 lire per pound.

When I first went to Italy in the late 80's the rate was around £1=L2000, and by the time of the introduction of the Euro is was around £1=3000.

Italy managed for years by constant devaluation of its currency, a remedy no longer available to it and the cause of real pain there.

[pianistimo]

not being an economist - my predictions are based soley on the bible.  and, as you both have been so kind to get me more up-to-date on happenings around the world - i shall combine my biblical predictions with across the street knowledge.

my neighbors are attempting to sell their home.  a year or two ago - it would have been flooded with potential buyers at two open houses.  NOBODY showed up.  we live in a prime area for growth (and big conglomerates/malls are expanding - but smaller stores have been going out of business right and left).  the problem is the lending rates and corresponding high credit card interest which makes it hard for young people to get a foothold into the housing market as before. 

my only understanding for young people so far is to really pay by CASH.  live meagerly.  save and put money into credit unions and not the typical banks.  even though the housing market is poor- as i see it - it is one of the few ways left to make money if the housing market turns around. 

ok.  back to the euro.  against the odds - i see the stronger nations simply assuming some risk for the poorer and forcing them to integrate (thus losing some national identity).  i think the nations of europe will expand under different names.  this is simply a personal feeling.

biblically - the revival of the 'holy' roman empire is not out of the question, though, is it.  i mean books have been written on this subject by serious scholars and they do not doubt that a 'one world system' is likely to be combined with powerful intruege which does not rule out the catholic church.  the pope is said to be addressing the eu parliament sometime.  so, as i see it - the element of mystery (religion) and politics is not so far-fetched.  otherwise - we wouldn't read of it in the newspaper.  i admit i don't read as much as i should - but when i do - it seems that there is a 'spirit' of secrecy that will soon become open to all.  we'll see what is truly happening behind the scenes in banking, industry, and government.  nobody can stay afloat without relying on some help.  so - this help comes at a price.  joining the eu.

[pianistimo]

ps  if i would have been my neighbor's real estate agent - i would at least have brought a friend over to pose as a buyer.  i mean - that's fairly embarrassing to have nobody show. and the five year old house is really fixed up (completely repainted - newer carpet - everything is nice).

i forgot to say, too, alistair - that i doubt the us economy will be competing for long with the euro.  i mean - isn't the euro at 1.36 or 1.38.  so that means that possibly (for the first time in a long time) americans are going to keep investing in the euro so they don't lose money.  this is the way it will be, too, for those countries who are fairly well-off dont' you think?  this influx of money will probably boost the euro even more dramatically.

personally, i feel like patrick henry.  give me liberty or give me death.  i will keep the dollar and eat it.  but, i will only eat dollars that say 'in God we trust.'

[thalbergmad]

Perhaps the most significant result of what happens in Scoltand on Thursday will be in the percentage turnout.

How true.

Having being advised by a Hotelier on the Island of Lewis that a visit by a politician attracted 6 people, i predict that in some areas, it will be rather small.

Thal

[pianistimo]

forgot to respond to the idea that the UK was a crown (monarchy) since biblical times.  and, the overthrown irish to scotch to english is dated here:
https://asis.com/~stag/stone.html#time%20line

this stone was used for the coronation ceremonies of the 'jacobites.'  many names, places, and associations make it all the way back to the first king of 'israel' - king david.  some of the psalms are still used at coronation ceremonies.

[thalbergmad]

Well, we had many Kings/Queens in biblical times, now just one.

Not sure what your point is, but i rarely am.

Thal

[ahinton]

not being an economist - my predictions are based soley on the bible.

Indeed - but not being an economist is no excuse for the source of your predictions (and it's "solely", by the way, not "soley" - even in American, methinks)...

and, as you both have been so kind to get me more up-to-date on happenings around the world - i shall combine my biblical predictions with across the street knowledge.

The mind fair boggles - the history of Christian times merged with that of present-day PA so as to make a point about real estate sales problems...

my neighbors are attempting to sell their home.  a year or two ago - it would have been flooded with potential buyers at two open houses.  NOBODY showed up.  we live in a prime area for growth (and big conglomerates/malls are expanding - but smaller stores have been going out of business right and left).  the problem is the lending rates and corresponding high credit card interest which makes it hard for young people to get a foothold into the housing market as before. 

Here in Bath, UK, the current thinking is that, given time and a continuation of the present market even allowing for its occasional blips, a million pounds will probably be required in 15 years' time or less just to buy the garage into which to park the cars that you can't afford to buy...

my only understanding for young people so far is to really pay by CASH.  live meagerly.  save and put money into credit unions and not the typical banks.  even though the housing market is poor- as i see it - it is one of the few ways left to make money if the housing market turns around. 

Try doing that here on five-figure university debts; you'd have not to live meagrely but to "unlive" in order even to begin. In most cases, you'd have to steal the cash to do this.

ok.  back to the euro.  against the odds - i see the stronger nations simply assuming some risk for the poorer and forcing them to integrate (thus losing some national identity).  i think the nations of europe will expand under different names.  this is simply a personal feeling.

Interesting thought but, when the chips are down, each nation will look after itself as best it can and to hang with the others - none will be able to afford to adopt any more altruistic attitude than this, I think. The extent to which national identity might or might not be preserved will inevitably depend on many other consideations besides purely economic ones.

biblically - the revival of the 'holy' roman empire is not out of the question, though, is it.

Since you ask - yes.

i mean books have been written on this subject by serious scholars and they do not doubt that a 'one world system' is likely to be combined with powerful intruege which does not rule out the catholic church.  the pope is said to be addressing the eu parliament sometime.

You are a devout Christian, as I understand it - yet why is it that, from time to time, I get the distinct impression that you are at best suspicious of the Roman Catholic Church?

so, as i see it - the element of mystery (religion) and politics is not so far-fetched.

In an ideal world, perhaps it would not be. We don't live in one of those, Susan.

  otherwise - we wouldn't read of it in the newspaper.

You cite NEWSPAPERS as some kind of authority on such matters of importance? Shame upon you!

i admit i don't read as much as i should - but when i do - it seems that there is a 'spirit' of secrecy that will soon become open to all.  we'll see what is truly happening behind the scenes in banking, industry, and government.

You are certainly correct in that it is becoming increasingly difficult, challenging and expensive to hide all manner of things, but seeing more of what goes on doesn't mean that it will change; take private equity companies' acquisitive activities, for example - who is to say that one of these might not dislike what goes on somewhere in attempts to flout its ambitions that it takes the plunge and says "right - we don;t like that, so we'll buy up the country"? This has not yet happened, as far as we know - but it will...

nobody can stay afloat without relying on some help.  so - this help comes at a price.  joining the eu.

EU membership is not the same as Eurozone membership (i.e. not all member states are part of that currency). No one yet knows hoe far the EU might expand. Personally, I think that the first things that will happen will be the acquisition of Turkey, the ex-Yugoslav states and Albania, together with the absorption of the recalcitrant Norway and Switzerland - but then the Moroccan desire for membership will inevitably open the entire question of which Arab / Middle Eastern states might in time follow its membership ambitions; whilst it would obviously take a good many years, the possibility that all the north African states, the new Palestine and Israel may join is far from unreal and then Lebanon and Jordan might followe suit. If it goes this far, it may only be a matter of time before applications are received from Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia and all the other gulf states, then Iraq (yes, Iraq - which has a border with Turkey, one of the existing applicants), Syria, Irán and Afghanistan, the latter two of which have borders with what were once southern states of the former Soviet Union. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ingushetya and Chechnya will follow - more easily if the more western ex-Soviet states such as Ukraine and Moldova have already become members - then it will be a matter of absorbing all those other -stans - Uzbeki-, Tadziki-, Kazakh-, Kyrgyz-, Turkmeni-, together with the more central and then eastern states of the former Soviet Union until the EC extends from Ireland and Portugal in the west to the Pacific ex-Soviet seaboard in the east. Denmark (already a member) will drag Greenland abd the Faroes in and then (of not before) Iceland will simply have to get in. Given the fragmentation of certain previous nations of which we have written before (the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia being perhaps the most significant already, but the forthcoming broken-up UK and split Spain and France that will release, at the very least, the Basque country and Catalunya as nations in their own rights falling not far behind in importance), we might end up with an EU comprising at least 80 nations. OK, this may take years, but it will probably be necessary as an economic and political foil for the rampaging China; small may remain beautiful but its practicality in political and econominc terms is dissipating fast, as some of the more fearful of you in US know well. But try achieving any kind of "world government" out of that lot! Forget it!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

.

[pianistimo]

.

[thalbergmad]

just as with scotland and the navy boatyards.  i mean - if scotland becomes independant  and hangs with the eu - the british will really not have a leg to stand on.  the monarchy might have to go into hiding and hope for the 'good old days.'  but, everyone let it happen.  britain - the us.  we can't really determine fate.  it's already decided and has been sliding towards globalization for fifty years.  just like a deck of cards falling down. 

Incredible

[pianistimo]

.

[thalbergmad]

You need to get a job

[pianistimo]

.

[thalbergmad]

Most sensible thing you have said in ages.

[jlh]

I think I need a drink now... scotch anyone? 

[allthumbs]

Scotch on the rocks? YUMMY  (Why can't you change smileys in size? )

[jlh]

Scotch on the rocks? YUMMY  (Why can't you change smileys in size? )

Well, you CAN... if you want:

[shortyshort]

.

Looks like Susan is up to her old tricks. Why bother posting if you're going to delete them all. More regretful statements

[pianistimo]

merely explaining what i do in a day's work.  but, then i thought it might sound like whining.  everyone seems to do these things.  for me, it takes longer.  just shopping alone is an hour.  driving.  youknow.  the day is gone before it starts.  of course, not everyone on here has three children either.  actually practiced three or four hours yesterday, though. how about you shorty?

ps i'm saving 'skip over' time by typing dots.  are you complaining?

[ada]

of course, not everyone on here has three children either.  actually practiced three or four hours yesterday, though.

Well I don't mean to snipe or get involved in what you Americans call a "mommy war" but some people  have children AND hold down a full time job. To have three or four hours to practice is an unimaginable luxury.

I know everyone's life is always more difficult and busier and more stressful and more poorly paid than the next, but...

I have a friend  who has three kids and works full time. She only has half an hour to practice the piano, but she needs to get up at 4.45am, five days a week to do this. She's at work from 7am and often not home till 6.00. And she then she has to feed kids and face the housework.

Sometimes she thinks how easy it would be if she could just potter around the house all day doing the laundry and shopping while the kids are at school but she knows she would very quickly find herself chewing off her left arm in boredom.  This would also be counterproductive in terms of playing the piano all day, which would be the main objective of staying home.

Looking after three children is hard work, sure. But women who are in the workforce do the domestic stuff (that the stay-at-home mob find so demanding) ON TOP OF a 40 hour week. The outcome is professional fulfilment but a distinct deficit of personal time or headspace.

I don't know if anyone here is in that situation. Would love to know. If so, please share 

[ahinton]

Well I don't mean to snipe or get involved in what you Americans call a "mommy war" but some people  have children AND hold down a full time job. To have three or four hours to practice is an unimaginable luxury.

I know everyone's life is always more difficult and busier and more stressful and more poorly paid than the next, but...

I have a friend  who has three kids and works full time. She only has half an hour to practice the piano, but she needs to get up at 4.45am, five days a week to do this. She's at work from 7am and often not home till 6.00. And she then she has to feed kids and face the housework.

Sometimes she thinks how easy it would be if she could just potter around the house all day doing the laundry and shopping while the kids are at school but she knows she would very quickly find herself chewing off her left arm in boredom.  This would also be counterproductive in terms of playing the piano all day, which would be the main objective of staying home.

Looking after three children is hard work, sure. But women who are in the workforce do the domestic stuff (that the stay-at-home mob find so demanding) ON TOP OF a 40 hour week. The outcome is professional fulfilment but a distinct deficit of personal time or headspace.

I don't know if anyone here is in that situation. Would love to know. If so, please share 

Well said. I would be the last to seek to undermine the problems attendent upon anyone trying to raise three children, hold down a full-time job and practise the piano on a regular basis and I openly admit that I've got it very easy by comparison with such a scenario because I am not a woman. I have no children, I don't have a "job" (at least in the sense of an employed office, although what I have instead means that all hours are potential working ones) and I don't play the piano anyway - so I am not eactly lacking in sympathy. But - since I am not at all in this situation - I'll shut up right now!...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i think it's really up to the individual woman.  if one woman doesn't do exactly as another (for varying reasons) i don't think there is as much snobbery as there once was on either side. 

as i see it - if i paid for babysitting, shopping, housecleaning, yardwork, carpooling, bill paying - all my income would be gone (plus more).  and, the quality you get really depends.  plus - nannies and housecleaners can quit on a moments notice.  also, i forgot about cooking.  that one is unpaid - but if you paid for a personal chef - i'm not sure how much that would be.  sometimes eating well and not having to buy clothing for each day of work - is less stressful than having money coming out your ears.

yes, there are times when i have almost chewed off my arm.  but, there have been many rewarding moments also.  i know exactly when my children took their first steps.  exactly what they do after school.  and, if they need a sudden trip here or there to get supplies for a project - or need my undivided attention - they can have it.

but, if i had a career and found suitable help - i'm sure i wouldn't be sad about not being there for every step of the way.  i don't really think that i would be in a position to judge another person about their choices.

i think whatever makes a woman happy, her family happy, and for their to be a 'flow' and not a stressful situation from day to day.  personally, i cannot thrive in too much stress.  otehr women handle it gracefully.  i need sleep.  in fact, i cannot function if i get up before 6-7 am.  and, i seem to need an early bedtime.  it helps to be at home because if i need a 15 minute nap - nobody is there looking at the clock.

there have been times in the past that i tried to fulfill others expectations.  as you get older - you just do what you personally are capable of doing and don't have regrets.  i don't regret staying home.  others don't regret working out.  piano lessons is something that one can do in the home.  i don't need to hire a babysitter for my own children when i do this.  therefore - i can keep the entire amount - excepting taxes of course.

about practicing.  that IS part of my work.  considering that i have a bachelor's in piano performance - the goal is to someday be good enough to perform once again.  possibly piano concertos and the like.

 

[thalbergmad]

There are lots of women that hold down a full time job and bring up kids, which must be difficult.

But pianistimo is something special, for she has to bring up kids and spend 10 hours a day posting crap on piano forum.

Must be much harder.

Thal

[pianistimo]

yes.  life is good.  plus, if i worked out - i couldn't watch random gary cooper movies like 'meet john doe' or 'mr deeds goes to town.'

[pianowolfi]

Well, you CAN... if you want:

Coool

[pianistimo]

i don't know what makes people think being at home isn't work.  it's not like the day ends at 6 pm.  of course, i realize that it starts then for people who arrive home from work.  what then - work til midnight?

[shortyshort]

merely explaining what i do in a day's work.  but, then i thought it might sound like whining.  everyone seems to do these things.  for me, it takes longer.  just shopping alone is an hour.  driving.  youknow.  the day is gone before it starts.  of course, not everyone on here has three children either.  actually practiced three or four hours yesterday, though. how about you shorty?

ps i'm saving 'skip over' time by typing dots.  are you complaining?

Wouldn't it be wiser to just not write so much in the first place. When you keep deleting stuff, the subsequent posts don't always make sense.

[thalbergmad]

the subsequent posts don't always make sense.

I am not sure any of them did.

Thal

[pianistimo]

soooo.....besides playing the last movement of the pathetique first - what else does YOUR day encompass shorty short?  i suppose you want sympathy just for being short.  believe me, it won't work now.

[shortyshort]

soooo.....besides playing the last movement of the pathetique first - what else does YOUR day encompass shorty short?  i suppose you want sympathy just for being short.  believe me, it won't work now.

No sympathy required. I'm at work from 07.30 till 18.00. I go home, give the Mrs. a kiss, grab a can from the fridge, practice for say 1/2 to 1 hr, maybe help the kids with their homework, (if they have any), help kids with their piano practice, maybe watch the telly for a bit, perhaps practice again, do everything i'm told to do by the wife, (well, almost), go to bed.

Then unfortunately it all starts again the next day.

In fact I am 6'0" tall.

[pianistimo]

navy time always does look longer.  well, it's good you do everything you're told by the wife.  that will get you some bonus points somewhere's along the way.  probably keeps her from leaving you for a shorter man. 

my husband's really good that way with homework help, too.  it really does make a difference.  i've made all the difference i'm going to make - therefore - i say 'what homework?  what dinner?'  and keep on practicing.  (well, this is only maybe 1 day a week).

as i see it - there are two choices.  work.  not work.  sometimes i do one.  sometimes i do the other.  piano practice is definately not work.  and yet - i feel it is my other job - besides being a mom.  it gives me sanity and peace of mind.  and, you can see a literal progression from day to day rather than a continual cycle of laundry, dishes, etc.

[ahinton]

piano practice is definately not work.

Then - if you'll pardon my saying so - you can't be doing it right...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

no.  i'm looking for my passport pic and stuff to go with it.  will let you know if i make the cut-off in time.

[shortyshort]

Then - if you'll pardon my saying so - you can't be doing it right...

Best,

Alistair

Sorry, but Pianistimos' statement, "piano practice is definately not work", is probably the most sensible thing she has written in ages.

For me, as soon as it feels like work I stop 

[ahinton]

Sorry, but Pianistimos' statement, "piano practice is definately not work", is probably the most sensible thing she has written in ages.

For me, as soon as it feels like work I stop 

Perhaps this is because you (and perhaps Pianistimo also) are viewing piano practice as an enjoyable activity - which one hopes it usually will be - but, to me, that doesn't of itself mean that it isn't also "work"; the extent to which it is so would likely depend on the number and degree of challenges posed which one hopes to overcome during any given practice session - aftr all, isn't the object of practising to achieve something that one has not achieved previously or to improve on previous achievements? Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but your latter statement here appears to imply that what you're talking about is something that might sometimes "feel like" work - i.e. drudgery - and you are surely wise to stop practising when that happens, otherwise you won't achieve much, if anythying.

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but your latter statement here appears to imply that what you're talking about is something that might sometimes "feel like" work - i.e. drudgery - and you are surely wise to stop practising when that happens, otherwise you won't achieve much, if anythying.

I very rarely actually achieve anything while practicing, because i'm not very good.