of frankenstein or a god

hello there


it has been a while since i wrote of a particularly favourite subject here. that subject would be, look you see, the one of his greatness, his excellency, the legendary Jim Bowen, may he rest in eternal peace. fear not, for there has been no particular reason for this absence, except that the repeats of Bullseye seem not to be so frequent on the tele no more, and with that there has been little to comment on.

as it happens, i now have two things - not one and not three - related to Bowen to put up here. so as not to waste future material for a post, i shall deal with just the one here. this is a pretty exciting one, so don't go thinking you are missing out.

yes, that is indeed the great Jim Bowen. also yes, that is him stood before his most familiar background association, the Bullseye massive stage dartboard. no, that is not a usual angle or image of either.

the above image, and all that shall follow, are off of something called the Bullseye Interactive DVD Game, which i recently obtained. well, i suppose that last bit is fairly if not quite somewhat obvious, is it not. many of you will be concerned, interested or curious about the provenance of this procurement. for those that are, it was all of £1 in a charity shop.

quite right, you are, to ask or otherwise suggest that these "interactive DVD games" tend to be a bit wonky. whereas they are well intentioned, a home DVD player simply does not have the processing power of a computer, or one of them x game play box station things. usually this means that the games are not so much "interactive" as they are sluggish, with (for want of a better term) players engaging with them finding much of their interaction time is sat watching a frozen image as the player tries to find the right spot to play on the box.

something of a more pressing question in respect of this one is the sheer brazen moral ambiguity of it all. you do, in essence, not only "control" Jim Bowen in this; effectively by putting the disc on and embracing the interactive elements you are well and truly resurrecting him.

does this power, i both fear and wonder, make you some sort of quasi god, or some form of quasi frankenstein like character? perhaps i should not worry too much about such, instead simply be glad and merry that it is so.

a very big failing of these "interactive" games, the main reason why they get played once and then dumped on the likes of charity shops, is usually that they are complete rubbish. not so with this one. other than getting the presence of Jim Bowen, and the voice of Tony Green, in your home, the game section actually works quite well.

normally these games where you have to press a button to make an action happen are slow and sluggish, meaning that your fast response is irrelevant compared to the (complete lack of) processing power on the pc. think the old arcade game Dragon's Lair and you have the idea. with this, though, the two pronged approach to throwing a dart works rather well indeed.

plus, as mentioned before, you get Jim Bowen speaking to you. the power to have Jim speak to you when you want, and pretty much how you want so long as how you want is within the strict parameters of what is recorded, is surely worth £1 of anyone's money. my money going to some charity or other is just an added bonus. 

an important element of Bullseye was, of course, the questions posed to the contestants. was this in fact of more consequence than the darts element? perhaps. the questions posed by Jim Bowen, always all from his own vast wealth of knowledge, served to raise the intellectual levels of our country in a highly beneficial way. just think - if that chap what invented the internet and that didn't watch Bullseye, then he may have never had enough information to be able to build it, or shove the wires in the right places, or whatever.

the above does show off Jim's astonishing knowledge of European born motion picture stars who both lived in America and pursued political careers, yes, true. it does, however, also show off the dynamics of this video disc game. yes, it follows the format of Bullseye as close as possible, but for the sake of fairness you get four options for the questions asked. contestants on the real show, of course, had to rely purely on their knowledge alone to appease Jim and his thirst for information.

does above mean that the holy grail of reward, Bully's Prize Dart Board, features on this interactive game disc? why yes, of course it does. here you go, in one of them "animated GIF" things that you all like, especially (only) when in Commodore 64 mode, here's Jim introducing you to the challenge.

would it be best to describe the above as splendid stuff or sensational stuff? i am not sure, although it does not really matter for both are quite correct.

unfortunately it is kind of around this stage that the spell is broken, that reality sinks in and the limitations of "interactive" truly come to the fore. although you get to play Bully's Prize Board and aim for prizes, you do not of course get whatever prizes you win. or get the chance to gamble them in search of scoring 101 (or more) to win a speedboat, caravan or similar.

here, then, is where you are left alone, possibly lonely, and sad. if, at least, your imagination does not stretch to pretending that you have won and Jim has embraced you in celebration of your success. or if your budget does not stretch to actually buying whatever you win for yourself.

the presentation of Bully's Prize Dart Board and the prizes is at the least accurate. above is pictured Bully's star prize, a most magnificent 26 (or similar) inch television set, on which one may watch analogue broadcasts of Bullseye and other, lesser shows.

i do of course have to be careful with statements like the above. well, kind of. for some reason i have become known as what they call a "social media influencer", with me apparently wielding great power over opinions and actions. no, then, i am not directly saying that you should go and purchase a whole load of products that were reserved for the bourgeois and the elite back in the 80s in order to fully recreate the Bullseye experience. i am just highlighting how it may be done if so desired.

once again i suspect that i am guilty of taking and uploading far too many images of Bullseye in relation to the words i have to speak (write) around them.

would i recommend this Bullseye "interactive" DVD game to you, the readers? it is highly likely that by this stage you could have a guess at my answer. yes, should you wish to have your guess confirmed, or if you were not inclined to speculate. mindful of how you have to be quite careful of the tacit power it gives you to resurrect Jim Bowen.

how often am i likely to play this disc myself? not very. i had a go, won £270 cash, a set of golf clubs, some sort of sewing machine, a bike and a flash tele, and then in the 101 or more section i disappointingly won a car rather than a caravan or speedboat. as the law states that members of the public were only ever permitted to be on Bullseye once it would, in a sense, be wrong for me to go on the disc again. but then again, if i did have another go, maybe i might win the speedboat.

right, well, that's that for this post, and looking at the date, for May posts too. yes, more to come in June, probably, and if so certainly more super, smashing, great Bullseye stuff. if not next month then the month after.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fake DVLA text message

hello

just one of those "public service announcement", trying to help out the people posts, look you see. by no means would i call myself an expert in this sort of thing, but then again as quite a few always appear to get duped by scammers and fake messages i felt it best to share what i know.

in this instance, then, we have (presumably) criminals trying to catch motorists off guard. they are doing this by sending out a text message claiming they are due a refund of an overpayment by the DVLA, also known as the car and driving licence people.

let me take you through this step by step, so you can see how this is a fake and also how to spot them in the future. most importantly, though, please DO NOT follow any of the links you see in this post or call any numbers. right, here we go with the text message itself.

how do i know this is fake? in this instance it was fairly easy. for a start the DVLA would not have had the mobile number this was sent to. secondly, a few years ago i was, weirdly, due a refund from them. they send a cheque in the post and do not ask you to visit any website. other than that, there's the poor grammar at the start, and the poor "please follow at" wording.

number one for spotting these as fakes is the web address. every - EVERY - official government department website would have "gov" in the domain name (address) at some point. this one does not, and as enthusiastic tax collectors i can assure you the DVLA are very much a government department.

rather than try and explain it all in words again (i have done several posts on this), i have taken to that most beloved of software, MS Paint, to create the following.

hopefully that makes some kind of sense. for words to explain, the actual address you would be visiting then is uk-refund-ref27. we will get on to them in a bit more detail just now, but let's concentrate on the address we have. yes, indeed, there's the "dvla" in the web address, so it looks like it is real. everything which preceeds a "." before the domain "." (.com, .co.uk or what have you) is a "subdomain". you can create absolutely anything you like for that, it's not registered anywhere and certainly not under any control.

for fun, then, i decided to investigate the main domain here. who knows, after all, maybe they (the government) has (have?) elected to outsource all their web stuff, but neglected to inform anyone. if this was the case, surely those doing it would be transparent and accountable......

oh dear. this domain is less than one week old at time of writing. quite new, then. well, it does only take a few minutes to set up a basic, rudimentary website.

they do seem quite reluctant, whoever registered this domain name, to say who they are. i decided to dig a little deeper then, but i must add dig in perfectly legal, open to all who use the net databases in order to see who owned or at least registered this address.

i don't know about you, but i can never ever get bored of reading redacted for privacy again and again on a computer screen. how fortunate, then, that the people who own this faked DVLA website address have opted to hide every single detail of their registration behind that particular phrase.

there are, of course, all sorts of legitimate reasons as to why someone who retain privacy for their website registration. under no circumstances could i think of why the DVLA, or any legitimate government department, would do such a thing. that would probably be because they do not.

every website has to be stored, or if you will "hosted" somewhere. so, for the sake of a complete look at this, i decided - again using freely available services, indexes and what have you on the web - to have a look at who hosted this website.

just fancy that! it seems the hosting company is just as secretive as the people who have registered this domain that they are hosting a fake DVLA website on. and what a surprise (as in no it is not really a surprise) this hosting domain, looking at the registered on date, is also very new.

so who is the hosting company? as all website hosting companies are always on the lookout for new business, they would not hide their details, would they? sure, of course they would.

yes, you are reading the above correctly. the servers hosting the web domain that has a fake DVLA web page on it are hiding behind a company that masks such detail, based in Panama. not really the sort of behaviour one would expect of the decidedly Swansea based actual DVLA.

hopefully this has been of some help to some of you. as for striking back at these criminal types, don't worry so much. i know of a few people, such as Codename : Demonix and Codename : Atari, that spend their spare time causing as much frustration and problems for these criminals as possible.

as i write this just to help, and with no advertising or any other such "revenue streams", please feel free to share this with anyone you think might benefit from knowing a bit more.


with the exception of sh!tbag criminals that set up scams like this,


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

be here now, or if you will a sh!t album revisited

howdy pop pickers


so here we go with something that may, or possibly may not be irregularly regular, look you see. asking whether albums dismissed as "sh!t" or similar about two decades are actually all that bad is a question posed by nearly no one. due to a spontaneous, compulsive purchase of Be Here Now down at Poundland, however, here i am asking.

this album is 22 years old this year, to be sure. whereas i will argue that the 22nd anniversary of a record is always the most important one, some of you might consider a more decimal, such as the 20th, anniversary to be more important. to that end, if you would like (or prefer) such, and indeed would wish for a very sycophantic, fawning look at this particular record, the BBC went ahead and did an article similar to what this one will be about two years ago.  it may be a good idea to have a look at that link anyway, for the more "factual" background to it all.

memories of the release? oh yes, i went along to the "midnight launch" of it, when record shops around the world opened at one minute past midnight on the day of release to start selling it. i took my friend Nicky. from what i recall, and she can correct me, i bought myself the record on tape and CD, and bought her the tape as a thank you for coming along. later, Mum got me the double vinyl of it.

Oasis were ludicrously huge at this time, and could do no wrong. the latter part we shall go into more detail on just now. expectations for this, their third album, were ludicrously high. but Oasis had the confidence, the arrogance and the self belief not to be crushed or pressured by such. on release it was calculated that Be Here Now was selling the equivalent of one copy every four seconds at one stage. the nearest closest comparison, when it was worked out that one in four households in the UK had a copy of Welcome To The Pleasuredome, the debut album off of Frankie Goes To Hollywood, didn't come anywhere close to it.

huge sales were of course met with glowing, fawning, sycophantic reviews. no music publication dare speak ill of Oasis, presumably out of fear of the risk of Noel bad mouthing you and your reputation is in ruins, or Liam smashing your face in. it was spoken of in exceptionally exalted terms, with the impression created that it was the single greatest record of all time, and nothing ever released after it would be anywhere near as good, so why bother.

and yet it died a relatively quick death. it feels like people fell out of love with Be Here Now as readily as they embraced it, perhaps showing that the disposable, instant gratification of the present day younglings of our society is not so new a thing. there's a few reasons why this happened (i think, or speculate), but just how many of them are the fault of the record itself is the question.

no, i am not going to go "track by track". well, yes i am, actually, with some of them, but not all. might end up being them all but i suspect it will be just highlighting one or two as points of departure. this just seems to be the best way to tackle it.

D'You Know What I Mean? the opening track of the album also happened to be the big selling lead single. problem number one. my dear friend Shaun has a rule, and that rule is "if the first track on an album is the lead single, the album is going to be sh!t". his conclusive proof of this was Pop by U2, and he was quite a fan of U2 at the time. due to the fact that Ian Brown tends to have the lead single as the first track on his albums i of course disagree with this a bit, but there is the rule for you if you wish to accept it.

as a lead single, it superbly let all know what was coming on Be Here Now. ludicrously long at 7 minutes, every form of musical instrument imaginable performed on it, meticulously produced to perfection and accompanied by a one million pound (cash) video featuring helicopters, lensed in 70mm Imax whatever and of course the sound being all Nigel Tufnel "mixed in dobly".

it was seeing the album and remembering D'You Know What I Mean? that led to the re-purchase. there's one line on the song, "i met my maker, i made him cry", that i always liked. yes, Noel might craftily regurgitate and rework songs from the past, but he does it ever so well, and delivers absolute gems of lines like this. maybe he does not do that so much now, but he did then.

for trivia fans, i don't recall it exactly, but the morse code on the go in the song. memories tell me it is either answering a question in the lyrics with the very brothers Gallagher phrase "f*** all", or it is supposed to be just saying "this means f*** all". an easter egg of sorts, then.

My Big Mouth easily the most compelling and intriguing song on the album. at face value, it's Noel making a not quite as rare as you might think admission of his failings, with particular emphasis on that incident. you know, the one which should have sank his career on the spot, when he unwisely expressed a wish that 50% of quasi rival band Blur "would get AIDS and die". oh sure, there was a backlash because of that, but a remarkably minor one when people in their masses felt it was better to overlook that so they could enjoy just how good an album Morning Glory was.

there's maybe more to the song than that particular incident though. stemming from it, perhaps, is the sense of "i am me and no one is better than me" arrogance of the lyrics around admitting he has a big mouth, basically saying it's ok for him to have one as no one can (or will) do what he does. i suspect it is also a comment, or dig, on The Stone Roses too. there are not too many ways to interpret the line "where angels fly you won't play" which don't come to a reference to Where Angels Play and the frankly total mess that The Stone Roses had become by that stage.

otherwise, it's one of the few songs not to be ludicrously layered, over bloated or extended beyond what it needs to be. possibly one of two, with the other being

Stand By Me. what was the magic of Oasis? the ability, no matter how many tens of millions in lovely cash they were sat on, to connect a concept with a massive audience. this song exemplifies this. made a meal and threw it up on sunday, i've got a lot of things to learn is a witty opening line and an experience many thousands - tens of, hundreds of - can instantly relate to. the rather simplistic, basic hook for the song - stand by me, nobody knows the way it's gonna be is anthemic chanting genius, the personification of the p!ssed up rallying cry of "you and me against the world, kidda", enthusiastically expressed in drunken euphoric displays of male bonding across the land and across the years.

in the great rush to dismiss Be Here Now as "overrated", "a rock folly", "pretentious" or just plain sh!t, perhaps all of us have been guilty of forgetting this song exists on this album. this song is of the same high - if popular rather than artistic - peerless standard the band delivered with Wonderwall and Don't Look Back In Anger.

Fade In-Out oh dear oh dear oh dear. too nice, i have been to the album. now is the time to discuss the low point of the record, and things do not get much lower than this song.

if not every band then every guitarist has some sort of fantasy or vision of being a "blues traveller". to be fair by this point Noel "got away" with indulging this, as things like Slide Away were "blues-ish" but with a distinctly and decidedly Mancunian twang. Fade In-Out is an indulgence too far, however, with Noel apparently feeling he was perfectly capable of channeling his talents as if he could totally relate to some 1930s downtrodden and in all likelihood blind black dude in the Mississippi Delta.

what's wrong with the song? everything. the worst part is probably the groan inducing presence of uber celebrity groupie Johnny Depp on "slide guitar". easily the most embarrassing part is the presumably supposed to be anguished, pained, suffering scream in the middle of a song. from a band that at this time didn't even have the most trivial of first world problems to waste a moment on, let alone anything mildly serious.

my feeling is that if this song had never appeared on the album (or even better never existed), Be Here Now would have lasted longer with a fonder, more popular view of it. but, as Noel said at the time and has always said in retrospect, absolutely no one would say no to him or anything he wanted to do, for all evidence available made it clear he could do no wrong.

Don't Go Away would appear to be not so much a stab at a Wonderwall for this record, but a handy back up in case the people didn't quite like Stand By Me. that is maybe a touch harsh, but also true. it's a good song, i was reminded as i played the album again for the first time in around 18 or so years.

Be Here Now or if you like the titular track is positively underwhelming. it's also astonishingly disconnecting between band and audience, due to one particular line. your sh!t jokes remind me of Digsy's might mean something to the band as a private joke, but to the audience it is pretty meaningless. i mean, we know of this Digsy and that he had a dinner as one song before was called such (lasagne, i believe), but this is a lyrical reference which means absolutely nothing.

also, it makes a direct reference to a Beatles album, Let It Be. by this stage of the record we have had to endure numerous Beatles references, such as "fool on the hill" and "long and winding road". enough now, we get that you like them. too much of this song is uncharacteristically privately introverted to connect with an audience, and the album would have been much better off with this removed from it.

All Around The World is the song that tends to get a lot of criticism. stretching over 9 minutes (making it at the time the longest number one single ever), like any number of songs on the record it is about twice as long as it actually needed to be to make its point. the thing is, though, it's really good. uplifting, positive, and splendidly simple to sing along to. what more is it you want from a pop record?

not sure which, but Noel said either he offered this for a Eurovision song entry or said that it was what he would do for Eurovision. i suspect the latter, as i doubt they would ever have entered for the UK. why not? a year or so before when they were asked to do an "official" song for England for Euro 96 is answer was "f*** off we're Irish"; something not always immediately clear when you hear Bonehead speaking.

at one point Noel described Definitely Maybe as the desire and wish to be a successful rock and roll band, with Morning Glory being that successful rock and roll band. to this end, Be Here Now was the album of a successful rock and roll band thoroughly enjoying the excesses, being quite aware that in order to ensure the truck loads of cash, cocaine and call girls kept coming they needed to deliver an album which was "distinctly different to but exactly the same as" the ones before. you have to say they, in all fairness, delivered precisely what was required, expected and desired.

but this was the "start of the end" for Oasis, and not just because Bonehead and Guigsy (again) left not long after. things changed. i think it was little more than a week after the release of Be Here Now that Diana died, an event which totally changed the mood of the UK. Noel's insistence on being a prominent part of the establishment also backfired. at first it seemed wonderful that Noel was mates with Tony "call me Tony" Blair, but that became an unfortunate association when he became Bliar, developing a taste for blood and war.

from here, then, each of the Gallaghers went off and got to do exactly what they wanted. all it seems Noel wanted was to have a huge pile of cash, get praise and applause from his contemporaries and peers, to be seen as an integral part of the rock establishment and regularly invite the likes of Ronnie Wood over for dinner. Liam, you get the sense, was always Liam and always will be. his only bow to the conventions of being part of the rock establishment was the obligatory marriage to Patsy Kensit, and you really can't help but think that if at that stage his net worth was fifty million pounds he would interpret it as him having access to fifty million cans of lager. and why not.

so yeah, Be Here Now is a remarkably good "sh!t" album. well worth revisiting. sure, it might sound "over produced" and ridiculously layered, but this was from a time when such mattered. now, today, it seems that "producing a record" means very little more than ensuring it sounds "twangy" and catchy enough whilst being played on horribly compressed, sound limiting formats such as mp3 files and "streaming".

anyway, as you were.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what's all this then

heya


every now and then, or if you like from time to time, look you see, inspiration takes someone to a place where they elect to combine two elements that nobody has previously thought to do such a thing. perhaps the greatest example of this is when someone did the most amazing thing ever, which is to combine the theme from (proper 70s) Battlestar Galactica with InterGalactic by the Beastie Boys, but let us not get into that again.

recently it was so that i had chance to experience - taste, as it happens - such a fusion of ideas. what came together was two food stuffs of a similar nature, as in that they are spreadable on things that you eat (often toast). the two things in question were peanut butter and marmite.

did i try this willingly? no, not really. in truth i had no idea that this combination existed until an Aunt of mine (no, the other one) spoke of her frustration in finding it and instructed, or if you like commanded, me to procure it for her. which, as you can see by the picture and by my confession to trying it, i did. no, it is neither easy to find nor particularly reasonable in cost, but what an Aunt of mine wants is what they get.

how did my Aunt, since it was her who wished to try it, find it? she said that it just tasted like peanut butter at the start, and then had a peanut butter aftertaste. yes, she did indeed suggest (insist) that i try it, and i can confirm i experienced the very same. so it is possible that anyone having a go at it will have a replicated sensation.

without doing any research i would suspect that this is one of those "marketing" things which commenced with an April Fool tester. over the years this has become quite common. take a peculiar idea, run it on April 1st "for a laugh", but be prepared to roll it out if customers, or people with money, express an interest. in recent times the most famous instance of this was the KFC "double down" burger.

for the record, no, i doubt very much that i shall be getting any more of this stuff. it would seem that giving it a go the once has satisfied the curiosity of my Aunt. as for me, well, it was all right, you know, but nothing said "make this a regular thing".



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's happening now

hi there


just a friendly reminder for that which you probably already know. yes, look you see, today is the day, it is finally here, get down and get with it, be there or be square.

i am of course speaking of the (proper) Richmond Meet 2019, which goes from today, 23 May, all the way to May 29.

yes, i must of course stress that this is the real, proper, Richmond, which of course means the one in Yorkshire. not to be confused at all with the false, lesser and much poorer one they have down in that there London place.

it is quite possible that you, the reader, are already on the way to this magnificent event. many are, with the anticipated crowd expected to be in the hundreds of thousands. will the million visitor mark be passed? let us hope so.

should it be that for some reason you are unaware of how to get there, just head for (proper) Richmond, Yorkshire, via your sat nav or google mapping or whatever. if it helps, the postcode for the cricket club there is DL10 4AR. but you could just follow the convoy of crowds, i suppose.

alas, no, is the answer to any question you have as to if i will be there. well, a provisional no. one cannot be too sure, perhaps my travels will take me there.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bomber

hey there


an undoubtedly welcome post, look you see, for all you Richard enthusiasts. yes, he is still very much in and around, and has treated us all to another most splendid adventure.

there are many, many wonderful features and leisure facilities that a hotel, to be sure, can add to their grounds as offerings to attract customers. generally aquatic, which is to say water, based ones are always a winner. when the hotel is on the sea front, however, maybe not so much. not too many tourists, i would suspect, take the trouble to go all the way to be beside the sea for a holiday and not avail themselves of such waters.

unless, of course, the aquatic offering of the hotel provides something different - be it unusual or a twist - to what one can get from the water of the seas and oceans. like, for instance, randomly shoving an armed and fully functional swimming pool on the 30th floor of the hotel.

yes, that is an aspect of the pool, taken as a still form from a video that Richard sent.

but of course i have the video for you. had i left it just as the above still, you could of course dispute the position and location of the pool.

off we go, then, with one of them panoramic, almost as close as you need to be "three hundred and sixty degree" videos. enjoy, behold and yet also be warned, for the splendid nature of Richard providing a commentary track also means that Richard uses some colourful turns of phrase to describe it all.

magnificent, isn't it? no, i do not believe i have ever used, or been to, such a facility. despite my unsolicited, hard to comprehend status as some sort of "social media influencer", my ways are not one likely to see me feature in any sort of revival of Lifestyles Of The Rich & Famous. such luxury as this is beyond my class status.

i appreciate that the above video is quite small in screen size, so here you go, another still frame from the clip for your consideration.

did Richard by any chance "do a bomb" into the pool? yes, of course. there is not one single body of water in the world what he has visited which he has not "bombed". for him, or to him, it would be most foolish to visit such a place and not allow his natural skills and talents to express themselves.

of course there is a video of this for your entertainment. Richard kindly agreed to let me show it here, so here you go.

the high volume of bombs Richard has done makes ranking them pretty hard, for in their sheer nature it would be that they are all pretty excellent. but, yes, i would agree, this one was one of the best ever bombs that he has done which happened to be recorded.

a still from the bomb video, preferably of Richard celebrating the excellence of it? sure, why not.

one of the more frequent occurrences on this blog is that the video and images i present are just so damned excellent and speak so well for themselves that there is little sense in me adding too many words. i would suspect, and have every reason to believe, that this is such an instance.

thank you for reading, and yes, Richard has indeed promised to forward on any other further bomber adventures, irrespective of at what height they occur.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

avengers endgame

hello there


or, perhaps (actually) more correctly (or if you like to be correct) hello from the last weekend of April this year. having just watched this Avengers Endgame business, look you see, i felt it was in keeping with the general consensus of spirit to put some distance between today and the publication of this, lest i be accused of "spoilers". surely it would be that all who wish to see the film "spoiler free" will have done so by now, or take a chance in continued reading of stuffs concerning the movie here on the internet.

i will, perhaps, go a little bit further on that. whereas people tricking others into seeing "spoilers" that they did not wish to see is quite mean spirited, for someone to actively read an article on something which they don't want to know the details of is curious. that would be curious in the sense of "let's have a go at russian roulette". whereas i would respect all who wish to avoid specifics and do place warnings when i might do it, you would think some - the majority of it, as point of fact - of the onus to avoid such would fall firmly with the person wishing to avoid it.

a spoiler free overview? sure. the film fluctuates between being good, quite good and very good. mostly the first to dominate, whereas in the previous film it was decidedly the latter which prevailed. this is a movie which does the job intended and wanted, one that is difficult to see possibly being made any better than it is, but ultimately doesn't "push to a new level" which was the case with a high percentage of the Marvel films before it.

right, for the benefit of those still yet to see it but wish to remain bereft of information, here you go, a brightly coloured, quite clear warning that *** SPOILERS AHEAD *** be true for the rest of this post. so, don't read if you don't want to, and if you do, no one can say that the signs were not present not to do so.

plot? well, as was widely speculated from what was shown in the trailer, yes, our intrepid heroes, or if you like The Avengers, seek to use the magic of time travel to try and undo "the snap" from Avengers Infinity War, when Thanos snapped his fingers and wiped out half, or if you will 50%, of all life in the universe, so as to protect and preserve the resources available.

what i was not expecting was how this was structured. you saw the warnings, yeah? it took me by surprise to see the film start with survivors some 3 weeks after the snap finding Thanos and killing him, with the "time travel solution" coming only 5 or so years after that. of the "major" character departures in this film, 66% of them were fairly obvious as the character story arcs has pretty much been done. the other 33%, however, rather took me by surprise as the character in question would have appeared to have had more stories to tell......

my favourite part of the movie? the way in which a "retired" Thor is out of shape and apparently dressing like The Dude out of The Big Lebowsk now means that i can claim to have the body of a god off of norse mythology. cheers for that. second favourite part was undoubtedly the all too short look at 1970 Michael Douglas. he looks really, really smart.

the third favourite part was how the fallout of Infinity War was handled. in the various perspectives of how people carried on after the "snap" - and yes i would include the reflections of Thanos in this - is a key, crucial example of how and why these films were all so good. character development, dramatic content and a strong plot development have always been as important as the flashy effects and action sequences.

ultimately the "problem" with Endgame is a quite good one we have seen before, at least twice, with The Dark Knight Rises and Blade Runner 2049. all three films were superb, excellent and as well made as they possibly could have been, but when you hold them up to their predecessor it becomes apparent that there was just no obvious way to surpass what had been before.

where next for all things Marvel? in terms of what is known, i believe Guardians Of The Galaxy 3 is on the way. that might now, however, be better called Guardians Of The Galaxy 3 Thor 4. also, i am sure i heard another Spider Man film was coming. otherwise, perhaps they will announce a whole other wave of movies, as and when they feel that anyone looking to avoid Endgame spoilers has done so.

for now then, that would be this post done.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

where opportunistic pilferers take refuge and shelter

heya


one of those sort of "complaints and grievances" sort of posts, look you see, or just a general whine if you would prefer to see it as such. up to you really, i can just write it all as it is.

in very general - broad, indeed - terms, if you did a survey of what makes verk across the UK good, it would be how the unions fight and defend rights whilst protecting us, the simple, honest workers coming out with a hig score. conversely, if you were to survey the worst of verk across our nation, it would be how the unions make it difficult, if not impossible, to go ahead and fire any staff member that is incompetent, generally inept and not up to the job or is plainly a thief.

the more essential or nationwide a service is, the more the latter is true. like, for instance, with the "jobs for the boys", once you are in you are in for life, no way will anyone ever get disciplined let alone fired world of royal mail.

yes, oh yes indeed, this is exactly how a letter arrived for me not so long ago. well, not exactly, i have taken the trouble of removing my address. doesn't that top corner look like someone has torn it open to have a look? maybe see what's inside, on the off chance that it was worth stealing? that was my thoughts. so, as i saw it being delivered like this, and knowing that tampering with mail is a very serious offence, i wrote to complain to royal mail, offering to send them pictures and/or the envelope.

without ever even seeing the pictures, this is how royal mail elected to reply. yes, i have indeed copied and pasted the response, as that is clearly what they have done -

Although we take care with all items sent with us, there are rare occasions when things get damaged during their journey. We use machines during the processing of mail and, if an item is bulky or not sealed correctly, it can become trapped or damaged. We do our best to remove items that are too big before they get into the sorting machines, but sometimes things are missed. I’m sorry, this may be the cause of damage to your item.

When we discover a damaged item, it should be re-sealed in one of our official plastic bags. This keeps the item and its contents, if located, secure for the remainder of its journey. I understand your item wasn’t enclosed inside one of these plastic bags, so please accept my apologies for this. 

i am not sure which is the most extraordinary part of that. whilst it could be that they totes know how the envelope got damaged without seeing it, perhaps it is the claim that a machine did it itself which takes that title. although i am no expert, i am pretty sure that if a machine did that to this, a quite standard envelope, then it would do the same to all envelopes which passed through it. which, this being royal mail, i would assume is a lot.

making this claim is at first lazy, but secondly saves royal mail doing anything pesky or time consuming like find and weed out any opportunistic thieves they employ. to do so would involve hearings, as well as involve the unions. that is simply too much time and effort for them.

what was in the envelope that someone in the employ of royal mail wanted to see if was worth stealing? no less than two free tickets to some scientology presentation or film or similar that Spiros thought i would be interested in. well, there were two in the envelope, perhaps there was more but off goes some royal mail employee to see what it is all about.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

four hours and fifty miles in a nissan juke

hi there


expertise and knowledge on all things automotive are not, look you see, something that i would readily claim to have. indeed, seldom is it that i am associated with such pillars of wisdom when it comes to wheels. but, if it helps someone out, from time to time i am delighted to make comment as and when i can.

for reasons i would rather not discuss and certainly cannot disclose (hence the rather not discuss aspect) i happened to have the chance of having a drive in a relatively new model of the nissan juke, which is a car model called juke made by nissan. these tend to be quite popular, at least in terms of you, the people, giving consideration to buying and driving one.

my overall, overriding and solid conclusion to anyone considering a nissan juke is simply do not punish yourself. no matter what sins you believe you have committed that you must do penance for, or how miserable and uncomfortable you wish to make your driving experience, don't go to this extent.

in terms of the most important element of a car, the stereo is almost perfectly serviceable. one can play a cd on it, the sound is not bad, and every now and then the radio stays tuned in to a station for five consecutive minutes. however, the display is annoying. unless you have the nissan approved memory card installed for navigation, which was not provided, the screen constantly displays an obtrusive message telling you to insert such. there was no way i could find to switch it off, so cd, radio and importantly bass information were a mystery to me.

comfortable to drive? no. everything about the shape and design of this car suggests the intention is to have a child's toy blow up by an enlarging laser ray. this extends, or rather shrinks, to the seats. as far as i could work out the only person who would be able to sit comfortably in this car would be a seven year old anorexic.

there's also an annoying middle compartment thing. basically, it's ludicrously oversized, and you have to sit and drive with your elbow on it, making steering and that quite a challenge.

my understanding was that the japanese were supposed to be quite good and clever with all this car making business. not so, on the basis of this, not so.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

another scam message

heya


well, what can i say. so much for the law, look you see. but that's not fair. ever since the laws and punishments for "cold calling" and outright scammers increased somewhat there has been a noticeable fall in the amount of times they happen.

quite the danger with that is complacency. if we are no longer used to rubbish, obviously fake and clearly intent on doing wrong messages coming our way then we might blindly accept that whatever messages come to us must be true. this is of course not the case.

this is one of them "public service announcements", then, if you like. recently the below landed on one of my devices. for a split second (actually less) i considered if it might be real. but no, the signs that it was a falsehood were too obvious. at least, to me. let me show you just in case they are not to your good self. and this is no shortcoming on your side, no one knows anything until they have such knowledge provided.

usually i blank out all the information that could cause you harm. in this instance i have left it, so a to illustrate the obviously false information. but, to clarify, please do not attempt to call the listed number, and absolutely do not type in that web address on any connected device you have.

let's start with that number. if you have two step verification on your accounts (and i would urge you to do this), when you get a text or SMS from the likes of Facebook and indeed to use the example here PayPal you will note that it usually states their name on it, not a telephone number.

as you read the message some issues are obvious. other than them not just randomly deciding to "validate" account, it is worth remembering that PayPal are a multi billion in any currency you like business. they probably can afford to hire a decent writer and someone to check messages, so you wouldn't get the error which made a fake hyperlink with no space between the full stop at the end of information and the word Please.

on domains, that looks real, does it not? after all, it has the security "https" part, and says paypal .co .uk, which i have spaced out. however, don't be fooled. please don't be fooled.

"https" is not all you think. for a start anyone can buy the certificate for it for their site. and just because it says it on the link does not mean it is really there. here is a perfectly safe example for you - go ahead, i promise it will not take you anywhere naughty or dangerous - www.paypal.com

the .co.uk on the address is misleading. it is what they call a "sub" domain. the address you are actually going to is always the very last domain you can see, either at the end of the address or just before any "/" parts. in this instance, then, you would be going to an address called ayiw . nl.

what to do with a message like this? best is to delete it. should you have a moment of doubt then by all means log in to the account you have a "warning" for, but do not follow any link. always type in the address you know is correct.

no, i am not an expert. just passing on information those who are wise have shared with me, and yes, in fairness, i have spent some time in the company of the charlatans, the fraudsters and the tricky ones of the internet.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

some reading

hello reader


just the usual stuff, look you see. i have, to be sure, completed the reading of two more books (as opposed to less, you say), and so it is time for me to comment on them.

quite a bit of a difference in my reading with this post. well, a 50% change, since it does not affect both. but of the 50% change, 100% totes was. yes, then, i have indeed delved into the rarely seen realm of non-fiction.

a look at what i read, and some spoiler-free overviews? surely.

to start where i started, then, Thanks A Lot Mr Kibblewhite by Roger Daltrey would be the rare non-fiction read. if you think i am going to speak ill or with about but praise about Roger Daltrey then you are quite mistaken. on more familiar territory would be the most recent of Charlie Parker novels, The Woman In The Woods by John Connolly. superb would be my chosen word on it.

can anyone actually give spoilers on non-fiction? i am not sure. well, anyway, to play safe, do please take note that an incidental *** POTENTIAL SPOILER WARNING *** is in place for the remainder of this post. i shall, as ever, attempt to refrain from such.

starting where i did with these two, then, and Thanks A Lot Mr Kibblewhite off of Roger Daltrey. a cleverly, if not strategically placed sub title for the book declares it My Story, so you know this is non-fiction.

provenance of my copy? off of my Dad. he got it, read it and post it across a great many oceans and seas to me. nice one Dad, cheers. he kind of knows that i seldom go near non-fiction, but wished to ensure that i "got around" to reading this, the tale of a shared idol of ours.

normally around here i would give some details on the plot. erm, ok, it's the life and times of Roger Daltrey as told by Roger Daltrey. that's the Roger Daltrey, him off of The Who. unless i am mistaken this is the first non-fiction i have read for some 5 or 6 years, with the last being either the Warren Zevon book, or possibly the Keith Richards one.

to use those books as a reference, Daltrey's telling of his life is neither as in depth or exhaustive as Richards, and in no way is it as dirty, shocking or revealing  as the Zevon one. frankly, what you get here is a sequence of anecdotes, with things referenced rather than explained. he talks about things which let you see and, if you so wish, understand his passion for, say, trout farming, and how he became the uber acolyte at the altar of the genius of Pete Townshend. yes, there are one or two funny tales of the legend of Keith Moon, but there's rather more how problematic he was to live with.

it's all told as you would expect Daltrey to tell it - no mincing words, no hiding away from things and always being up front. yes, now that i think, there are one or two quite surprising revelations - in particular why certain tours happened - but let me not spoil the read for anyone intending to have a look at this.

one thing, maybe. Roger seems genuinely upset that one of his solo albums, Rocks In The Head, did not sell very well. this is 25 or so years later. well, Roger, for what it is worth, my Dad got me that one, and it's an album i rate highly. perhaps, as a thanks for the read, i shall give the CD a spin again in the not too distant future and do a post on it.

back into the world of fiction for me, then, and very much a return to the familiar world of the works of John Connolly.  The Woman In The Woods is the latest Charlie Parker "supernatural thriller" to be available in my preferred medium, paperback.

provenance? Tesco, once more. i think this was just £3 on the week it came out, but also if it was £3.50 i would have purchased it.

the plot? an unusually quiet time for protagonist Parker. mostly he is focusing on the welfare of his two friends and protectors, Louis and Angel, but then his quasi legal representation asks him to "shadow" a seemingly straightforward (in relative terms) police investigation into the discovery of a dead female found buried in the woods. with no foul play suspected or considered, it all seems to be open and shut, just an illegal burial after an unregistered death. but, of course, this is a Charlie Parker story, and so more, much more, rises to the surface......

wow. this one was good. really good. after a few blips here and there, and a period where John Connolly seemed to be rushing out great ideas so they were so-so tales, he is well in a groove. i would suggest that this is top 5 or 6 material out of the 15 or 16 Charlie Parker novels he has done. curiously, or interestingly, this one is all flat third person, rather than the usual mix of 1st / 3rd. hey ho, it works.

so here's the problem with my "highly recommended" for this novel. for it to make any sense one would very much have to have read all of the previous novels. there are just too many threads and plot points lurking to read it in its own right, should i have worded that correctly.

or what it is worth, though, oh indeedy yes i would strongly suggest reading all of them. well, at the least starting off with the first one, Every Dead Thing. if you were to give that a go and liked it, well then there's somewhere north of a dozen books (and thankfully counting) of more of the same - often better - waiting.

anyway, that will or would be that for this look at some books. in conclusion, then, it would be fair to say that the Roger Daltrey one is a great read for Roger Daltrey fans, and the John Connolly book is an excellent one for anyone that happens to have read the 15 (maybe 16) or so that came out before it.

many thanks for reading, and as ever hopefully this has been of some use to someone out there somewhere!



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

no time to make careful decisions

g'day


yes indeed, look you see. just another post which one might, if they were so inclined, regard as being of little beyond me simply showing off. although if i impress anyone with this then i shall truly be pleased.

much like the previous post to this one, that being all about the Bowie Sound & Vision tape set i obtained, this is another purchase made off of the great digital car boot sale. one that relates, again, to something that i hold quite dear.

in this particular instance, though, it all relates to something arguably not quite so well known as David Bowie. also, unlike audio cassettes, there would not appear to be much of an easy means for me to actually make use of that which i have bought. but, still.

yes, it's Star Struck, or possibly Starstruck depending on your preferred way of stating the title again. i would ask you to note that this is the proper film with that name, it being the wonderful 1982 movie from Australia. other things may well have been released with the same name since, but they are nowhere near as good. i know this because they are not the film i love so dearly.

for some basics on the film you could always click here, and follow the links on the post i did then. or, as an alternative, just keep reading here.

that image above, in Commodore 64 mode, is another copy of the film i have picked up. it is the third one that i have obtained, with my current rate of obtaining them being one new (to me at least) copy every 12 years. a little obsessive, perhaps, but there you go.

and there is an almost complete look at my Star Struck collection. missing from the above is the vinyl lp of the soundtrack, what a dear friend from America got me. yes i was tempted to unpack it, but i felt that the cassette version of the soundtrack was sufficient.

for those interested, the "blue" one is the first one to have been obtained. it is sn Australian VHS copy, obtained by Mum. i may be mistaken, but i believe it was that she rented both this and Flash Gordon from a video rental store in Brisbane (or similar), just the day before we moved back home to England. undoubtedly there was every intention to return it, but alas this did not happen. the middle "pink" one is the DVD i imported from the USA. some copies of this are still out there available.

on the end, then, the "white" one with the "none more 80s" style cover, is the one i just got. this is a Betamax copy, which i cannot actually play due to not having a Beta video. no matter. what interested me was that it was a UK release of the film. up to now, i had no idea at all that the film was ever released in England, or other parts of the UK. evidently it very much was.

some research on the internet gave me a few more details. the BBFC, as is their way, of course found reason to make cuts to the film. no idea what, but if i were to guess there is the briefest glimpse of an actual, real lady nipple at one point, and at some stage someone calls someone a "w@nker".

one certain cut to the video, going on the running time, is the same as the Australian VHS. that would be the removal of one song performance, It's Not Enough. if you happen to like this song or the performance, it is only to be seen in the cinematic or if you will theatrical release, which happily is what one gets on the DVD. no, so far as i can work out, no censorship reasons for it being edited.

perhaps one day i shall get to watch this unexpected UK release of the film and see for myself what differences exist. to do so will, or would, of course require me delving into the world of Beta technology. which may be tricky. having a look on ebay suggests that a working (honest) Beta player will cost significantly north of £100. another, more viable option would be to pay someone with a presumably working Beta to convert it to DVD for me, with costs of that seeming to be north of £10 but generally south of £20. that strikes me as being fair.

where did i get this from? ebay. rather splendidly, and perhaps showing a general lack of interest in both this film and Beta, for a penny south of £5. this i consider a bargain just for the lovely box alone. my fervent bidding and successful purchase of the film were encouraged and condoned by my siblings, which is to say brother and sister, who love the film as dearly as me. and, like me, neither of them have ever met anyone who has seen or heard of this film beyond having being introduced to it by one of us.

if you are someone else that has seen or heard of this magnificent, wonderful film without having me introduce you to it, most happy day! truly, i do dream of one day meeting someone who loves it so dearly but has not had that tempered by my influence.

anyway, there you go. thanks, as usual and as ever, for taking the time to read.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't you wonder sometimes

howdy pop pickers


well, i suppose after writing about (or of) Bowie at least once a month for just north of two years it might have been predictable that i would find it tricky to give up doing so, look you see. and so this has proven to be, but at least i do so with sort of a good reason.

if you are wondering as to whether or not this all relates to some sort of indulgence buy, or other such "it is shiny, i want it" acquisition. the answer is yes. a fairly or otherwise relatively recent browse on that modern day car boot sale, ebay, led me to finding something that i already had (strictly speaking twice over), but in a different format. which was good enough to secure a purchase.

yes, indeed. above are, or is, the celebrated original issue of David Bowie's Sound & Vision retrospective box set. in audio cassette, or if you will tape, format. this originally came out way back in late 1989, and was for some reason limited in release to the USA and Canada.

what, exactly, is it? something of a, if not for Bowie then the music industry at the time, defining moment. this was a compilation which for Bowie kick-started a proper re-release of his 69 - 80 albums on CD, but did so in a way that was anything but a lazy or cheap "best of" cash-in. on a very rough, best guess measurement, somewhere around half of the tracks on the original set were "non-standard", as in they were different versions of songs, unreleased numbers, live selections and what have you.

although Crossroads by Eric Clapton, which was released a year earlier, is generally considered as the start of the phenomenon known as the CD box set, it was Sound & Vision which charted the path to take. Clapton's most excellent set was just that, but it was virtually all "previously released" stuff. the Bowie spin on it, giving fans stuff that they had probably not had any means or opportunity to get before, proved popular, with north of 200,000 copies of this (at the time) very expensive set selling.

yes, indeed, also a quite beautiful set, although my efforts in trying to take an image of the quasi "hologram" picture of Bowie on the box patently do not do it justice.

why was this original version not released in the UK? i actually have no idea. could be on Bowie's orders, maybe as he felt it would be too expensive or otherwise damage sales of the Changesbowie (more traditional) best of. or limit the sales of the ambitious album re-release plans, where if i remember right 2 or 3 albums were re-released every two or three months. most likely, though, perhaps it all had something to do with publishing, rights, the deal signed with Ryko, etc.

but, despite it not being available (or at the least not released) in the UK, did i happen to have this, the original release of Sound & Vision? why, yes.

it is all due to, or down to, my Dad's frequent international business travel that i was able to take ownership of it on CD. he happened to be off to the USA for work related stuff, i asked if he could possibly get this set for me, and indeed he did. nice one Dad, thanks again.

would i have been able to get it if not for my Dad? probably not, no. whereas now one with an internet connection can pretty much get anything from anywhere, then there was no such system. perhaps i could have got HMV, or Our Price, or similar, to order it in for me, or for that matter someone advertising in NME or Melody Maker may have imported it. although i can't say for certain, i suspect such an approach would have seen a cost around or north of £100, so absolutely not.

this CD version, and yes i will get back on to the newly obtained tape version eventually, came with something of an oddity. whereas you may think that Sound & Vision was called such just as a reference to one of Bowie's songs, it was more relevant to this particular variation. there were three CDs proper, to be sure, and then a "plus" or bonus disc, featuring some live tunes and the video for Ashes To Ashes on something called a CD Video.

from what i recall CD Video was a most unpopular format, filling the gap between laserdisc and the eventual rise of DVD. i don't think the system sold particularly well, probably due to the space and size limitations as to what you could get on the disc. yes, i did get to watch the Ashes To Ashes video off this disc, once. due to a strange quirk in multi-platform compatibility, this CD Video played perfectly well on a laserdisc machine a good friend had.

please don't hold me to this, but if i recall right the three live songs on here - Changes, The Supermen and John I'm Only Dancing recorded in Boston - eventually turned up on the Aladdin Sane 2 CD set which was released for some anniversary or another. no, the live songs were not included on the tape version of Sound & Vision and no, you didn't get a VHS or Beta with it.

which, i suppose, lets me return very nicely to this, the tape version of it that i recently obtained.

how much did i pay to take ownership of this cassette variation? one does have to be careful when engaging in these "auction" things on ebay, for when your magpie eyes are hungry for the prize you can forget all sense of budget or value. such a fate did not happen to me here.

in total, which is to say including postage and what have you, the fee brokered, bid and duly paid was north of £10 but south of £15. as point of fact a figure reasonably central to those two poles that i have placed for measurement. obviously it is always nicer to get something cheaper, but the budget i set out was "no more than a special edition CD down HMV", and so it was a most happy day to have it come in at less than that.

ooops, no, i have not given much in the way of details of what the set contains, other than rarities. well, in this original version it has lovely bookends, commencing with an early demo of Space Oddity and ending with Ashes To Ashes. in regards of the former, it begins with a lovely, innocent pitch from the young Bowie, with a message to the record label executives he hoped would hear that particular recording.

yes, indeed, that is inside one of the tapes for you. i would say that i selected tape two entirely at random, but as discussed before in the days of random bowie posts, that's my favourite look and era.

for what reason did i wish to own these tapes? i mean, was it just to gather more Bowie stuff, or burn of excess cash, or to actually play? somewhere across all three, i think. we, as humans, are aesthetic and tactile creatures. to see and to touch, as well as to hear, tend to be what makes us who we are. all this "streaming", be it music or movies, is lovely and convenient, and yet in doing that we miss the sheer beauty, the wonderful sense, of being able to touch, to hold, to feel.

the last sentiment is one i have mentioned before, and could well be something i touch on again. presently i have a bit of an itch to look at something which feels absurd yet makes perfect sense, namely the "VHS revival" quietly going on. but, i am not sure i am qualified to speak of it, or if there is much to say about it. we shall see.

it might well be that you guessed this, but above is a gander at some of the things what were in the early 2000s (i think 2002?) re-issue of the Sound & Vision box set. an expanded version, somewhat, too, with all of the 80s and up to (i think) the Black Tie White Noise album being covered. so yes, you lost the Major Tom bookends, but you gained some lovely extras. like, in particular, the proper film version of Cat People (Putting Out Fire). prior to this release it was tricky to get that one on CD.

yes, it probably was that song in particular which persuaded me to part with substantial cash for this CD revamped reissue. no, no real regrets, although obviously it was not too pleasing to see the CDs simply housed in plastic sleeves, nice though the fancy printing on them is. and indeed there was a further re-release, in the early 2010s i think, featuring the same material as in this early 2000s variation but in a smaller box. thus far i have not been tempted to get it.

any further justification or vindication i would like to throw out for purchasing this set? well, yes, certainly. as you can see clearly below, when you like the cassette version up it creates an entirely different picture to the one which happens when you line the CD version up.

right, well, that's about that. indeed yes, this post could be interpreted as "showing off". but why would i not do such on my own blog? hopefully, though, it has all been of interest to someone out there somewhere.

my thanks, as ever, for stopping by to have a bit of a gander and a slight read.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!