Definitions

ADULT:

A person who has stopped

                                                                      growing

at both ends
and is now growing

in the middle. 

BEAUTY PARLOR: 

A place where women curl

up and dye. 

CHICKENS: 

The only animals you

eat before they are born and

after they are dead. 

COMMITTEE: 

A body that keeps minutes

and wastes

hours. 

DUST: 

Mud with the juice

squeezed out. 

EGOTIST: 

Someone who is usually

me-deep

in conversation. 

HANDKERCHIEF

Cold Storage. 

MOSQUITO: 

An insect that makes you

like flies

better. 

RAISIN: 

A grape with a bad sunburn. 

SECRET: 

Something you tell to one

person

at a time. 

SKELETON: 

A bunch of bones with the

person

scraped off. 

TOOTHACHE: 

The pain that drives you to

extraction. 

TOMORROW: 

One of the greatest labor

saving

devices of today. 

YAWN: 

An honest opinion openly

expressed. 

WRINKLES: 

Something other people have, 
similar to my character lines.

Gullible us

Marketers can take advantage of consumers’ innumeracy

When retailers want to entice customers to buy a particular product, they typically offer it at a discount.

According to a new study to be published in the Journal of Marketing, they are missing a trick.

A team of researchers, led by Akshay Rao of the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, looked at consumers’ attitudes to discounting. 

Shoppers, they found, much prefer getting something extra free to getting something cheaper. 

The main reason is that most people are useless at fractions.

This numerical blind spot remains even when the deal clearly favours the discounted product. 

In another experiment, this time on his undergraduates, Mr Rao offered two deals on loose coffee beans: 33% extra free or 33% off the price. 

The discount is by far the better proposition, but the supposedly clever students viewed them as equivalent.

Consumers often struggle to realise, for example, that a 50% increase in quantity is the same as a 33% discount in price. 

They overwhelmingly assume the former is better value. 

In an experiment, the researchers sold 73% more hand lotion when it was offered in a bonus pack than when it carried an equivalent discount (even after all other effects, such as a desire to stockpile, were controlled for).

Studies have shown other ways in which retailers can exploit consumers’ innumeracy. 

One is to befuddle them with double discounting. 

People are more likely to see a bargain in a product that has been reduced by 20%, and then by an additional 25%, than one which has been subject to an equivalent, one-off, 40% reduction.

Marketing types can draw lessons beyond just pricing, says Mr Rao. 

When advertising a new car’s efficiency, for example, it is more convincing to talk about the number of extra miles per gallon it does, rather than the equivalent percentage fall in fuel consumption.

There may be lessons for regulators too. 

Even well-educated shoppers are easily foxed. 

Sending everyone back to school for maths refresher-courses seems out of the question. 

But more prominently displayed unit prices in shops and advertisements would be a great help.

What they said

Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself,'Lillian, you should have remained a virgin.' - Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter) I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: - 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall - Eleanor Roosevelt Last week, I stated this woman was the ugliest woman I had ever seen. I have since been visited by her sister, and now wish to withdraw that statement. - Mark Twain The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible - George Burns Santa Claus has the right idea.  Visit people only once a year - Victor Borge Be careful about reading health books.  You may die of a misprint - Mark Twain By all means, marry.  If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates I was married by a judge.  I should have asked for a jury Groucho Marx My wife has a slight impediment in her speech.   Every now and then she stops to breathe - Jimmy Durante I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back. - Zsa Zsa Gabor Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat - Alex Levine My luck is so bad that if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying - Rodney Dangerfield   Money can't buy you happiness .. But it does bring you a more pleasant form of misery - Spike Milligan Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was Shut up! - Joe Namath I don't feel old.   I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap - Bob Hope   I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it - W. C. Fields We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress - Will Rogers Don't worry about avoiding temptation.   As you grow older, it will avoid you - Winston Churchill   Maybe it's true that life begins at fifty .. But everything else starts to wear out, fall out, or spread out - Phyllis Diller By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.                          - Billy Crystal And the cardiologist's diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Spirit and matter

The unity of spirit and matter is stressed many times in the writings of the theosophical mahatmas. 

In the words of mahatma Kuthumi (KH):

It is one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of occultism that the two [spirit and matter] are one, and are distinct but in their respective manifestations, and only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses ... 

Matter per se is indestructible and ... coeval with spirit. 

Spirit and matter are one, being but a differentiation of states not essences ...

Force and matter, spirit and matter, and deity and nature, though they may be viewed as opposite poles in their respective manifestations, yet are in essence and in truth but one ... 

Purusha [spirit] and prakriti [matter] are in short the two poles of the one eternal element, and are synonymous and convertible terms.

Matter is ‘nature herself’, says KH. 

However, the matter of which he is speaking is not the supposedly dead and inert physical matter of the materialists, but the consciousness-life-substance of the occultists, which manifests in endless degrees of materiality and ethereality. 

Physical matter is a highly condensed and crystallized form of this one essence or one element – which could equally well be called the one life or one consciousness. 

When KH speaks of the eternity and indestructibility of matter, he is therefore referring not to its ‘ever changing form, combinations and properties’ but to its essence, sometimes called svabhavat. 

This eternal essence must be viewed ‘not as a compound element you call spirit-matter, but as the one element for which English has no name. 

It is both passive and active, pure spirit essence in its absoluteness, and repose, pure matter in its finite and conditioned state.

In other words, occultism recognizes ‘one element in nature (whether spiritual or physical) outside which there can be no nature since it is nature itself’. 

It ‘pulsates as in profound sleep’ during a planetary or solar rest period (pralaya), then rebecomes the ‘universal Proteus’ at the start of the next period of evolutionary activity (manvantara). 

Metaphysically speaking, the one element is the ‘one substratum or permanent cause of all manifestations in the phenomenal universe’.‘

The one element not only fills space and is space, but interpenetrates every atom of cosmic matter.

David Pratt

Internet dating

In 1995, local newspapers started reporting the first weddings of couples who, they revealed with breathless amazement, "ACTUALLY MET ON THE INTERNET!". 

It seemed freakish then. 

No sly glance across a crowded room, no awkward conversation steered round to that coy invitation for a first date. 

No setting eyes on someone before you asked them out. Instead, an online profile and maybe an email.

Today, partnerships made on the internet are not only commonplace, but fast becoming the standard way you meet your future spouse. 

New research shows that more and more couples are meeting online and marrying. 

In the US, a University of Chicago study shows that more than a third of those who married between 2005 and 2012 met online, up from 19 per cent just five years ago.

So why are more and more of Britain's 16 million singles turning to the internet? 

How – and why – does it work? 

And why do encounters fostered on-screen have a record, as they do, of making happier marriages? 

There are basically two sorts of online romantic experiences. 

First there are people who locate each other using Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, MSN Messenger, chatrooms or virtual communities focusing on particular interests or concerns. 

And second there are what you might call computer-assisted relationships, where online dating sites match people after they've completed a questionnaire. 

Shared values and aspirations are given far more weight than liking the same kind of music or both being into, say, cycling.

30s and 40s are the key internet daters. 

They tend to look for similar interests. 

People will say 'Oh, we clicked because we both liked cage fighting,' and that's fine, but to make a successful relationship you need more than common interests."

But whether a successful relationship came via self-started online encounters or dating sites, it was vital that they had a lengthy "getting to know you" period of emails and phone calls before they met face to face. 

Many couples felt that online dating took some of the "hit and miss" out of meeting a partner. 

On dating websites you have to give details, and the matching might eliminate some potential future problems before you even get going with the person, whereas when you meet naturally a powerful initial attraction might mask problems in the future.

The problem with meeting someone online is that you don't have any context for them. 

If you meet someone through work, you can ask around and find out that he's already married, or find out if he's a ladies' man. 

Online there's no context. 

Sometimes a context makes it easier to relax and trust them.

But there is another powerful pull towards online dating. 

You are, for example, 30, 40, or 50-something, employed and single. 

You're never likely to be mistaken for a film star, but you're presentable, well groomed, and with no obvious anti-social habits. 

So where do you go to find romance? 

Offline, you might meet a dozen potential partners in a year. 

Go online, and the pool you're fishing in is immense. 

The latest figures show nearly six million Britons are using internet dating sites, an increase of 22 per cent over the year before.

Not all of them are honest. 

Many internet daters report people who lie about their weight, height, drinking or smoking. 

And a 2005 University of Chicago study of 23,000 users of dating sites found 75 per cent of men claimed "above-average looks" – not a percentage many women would corroborate. 

And then there are the serial philanderers 

The early adopters of online dating tended to be the technically very savvy, who shared what one might call a certain geeky mindset. 

The new University of Chicago study found those who met their spouse online reported higher marital satisfaction than those who did not. (And, incidentally, those meeting offline at school, church, or social occasions had higher levels of satisfaction than those who met their partner through work, family, bar, club or blind date.)

People who meet online tend to be a bit older and a lot of divorced or separated people tend to go online. 

When you're young or in a football team or something it happens more rapidly, so you don't need to look online. 

The later you marry the more likely you are to stay together. 

You're more mature, you have more experience and you know yourself better. 

You are more able to have a mature, long-lasting relationship the better you know yourself.

We think if we find someone we click with on a deep, fundamental level all our problems will slip away, everything will be sorted and we don't need any relationship skills, like learning to compromise. 

But that isn't the case. 

The problem on the net is, because there's no context, that fantasy is alive and well and breathing. 

And because there are so many people online, we think we'll find our soul-mate. 

Whereas people who are 50-plus and have had an unfortunate marriage have learned a whole load of skills about having a good relationship. 

They're not expecting a perfect soul-mate.

It's likely that, soon, the majority of people will be meeting their future spouse online. 

And the major reason?

Time

In our modern world few people have much time or energy to hang out looking for a partner

Our lives keep us running from morning to night in the week

At weekends it is catch up time

With maybe going out for a few hours on Saturday night

The internet has changed this

It enhances our chances of meeting someone.

Probably yes

A report found traces of weedkiller in the urine of 182 volunteers living in urban areas across Europe.

Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue? 

A report released recently by Friends of the Earth and GM Freeze poses this exact question.

The campaign groups were reporting the results of their small snapshot study that found traces of glyphosate, one of the most widely used weedkillers in the world, in the urine of 182 volunteers living in urban areas across Europe. 

Glyphosate is known under the brand name Roundup and produced by biotech giant Monsanto.

The study was basic, the sample size was small, the report was unpublished. But could it point to an important issue for further investigation?

Academics denounced the findings as "not scientific", saying the results could not be taken seriously and that campaign groups should submit their work to peer-reviewed journals to provide a "genuine contribution to the debate".

Other scientists refused to comment on the study, saying that without it having gone through the review process there was simply no way of commenting on the findings. 

There is much to be said for peer-reviewing – having been through it myself I know how rigorous it can be. 

Though I found the process excruciating for its rigour, ultimately the end result was a far better paper based on more solid science.

But charities and NGOs often don't have the resources or expertise to undertake full scientific studies and publish them in journals. Is it even their role to do so? 

By producing snapshot studies that simply point to an issue, as long they don't make any grand claims based on their findings, aren't they simply doing their job of raising awareness of issues that affect society and the environment?

Friends of the Earth think so. Vicki Hird, said: "This was never intended to be a scientific paper for peer review – it is a snapshot only and one intended to prompt those who do have the resources to do the necessary testing." She added: "

These tests highlight a need for government authorities across Europe to carry out rigorous testing with far bigger samples to discover how widespread this issue is and whether there are any health impacts from low-level exposure."

Some might argue that groups like FoE are our eyes and ears, giving a voice to people, species and issues that could otherwise go unnoticed. 

They hold powerful companies such as Monsanto to account and stand up for justice in a world where the priority is usually profit. 

With no profit to be gained from studies such as testing for weedkillers and pesticides in human urine, who else would conduct them?

The role of such organisations is to point out the failings of the regulatory process, not to act as the regulatory process. This is the role of government.

It is also worth noting that anyone can publish studies of this nature to support their agenda, as is often seen with industry research. 

Research carried out by industry and campaign groups is similar in that there is always the possibility of bias and data being used to support a political position. 

Does it matter that the two groups are likely to differ in their motives, with one being focused on private profit, sometimes at the expense of the environment or society, and the other geared towards creating positive change for little or no private gain?

Many other reports, figures and statistics we are fed through the media and elsewhere are not peer-reviewed – government figures, industry reports, industry regulator information and even the Office of National Statistics data.

Campaign organisations are campaign organisations, not research organisations or thinktanks. 

Their job is to raise awareness of issues that affect society, so that action can be taken. 

However those organisations need to be very careful about what they are claiming based on their findings. 

And journalists need to be very careful about how they interpret the claims of organisations. 

But I believe they should be given a voice, not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists. I'd be very interested in your views.

Kara Moses