Apparently the classic fairytale of Three Little Pigs is now "too offensive", and the use of pigs raises cultural issues to the extent that the story should be excluded from important Government events.

Sometimes you need to take offence, though. This is yet another attack from the brigade fighting to strip life down to smiling at your neighbours on the street and apologising profusely if a blade of grass from your lawn lands on theirs. It's another attack from the brigade that wants to sterilise children's toys to the extent that they are not prepared to encounter bacteria in real life once they've left the safety of their own home. It's yet another attempt to soften up the world into a big, mashy pile of jelly (no offence to vegetarians intended).

Life doesn't work that way, and it never will.

If the "V" symbol were a greeting gesture in another country, I'd accept that and not take offence to it. That never works over here, though, for some reason.

Besides, one of the specific critisicms raised by award judges was, "is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?" Yes, I suppose three-year old children really pick up on false stereotypes like these when they see pigs with saws building wooden houses, and wolves blowing them down with nothing but their lung power. If anything, the imagination is wide enough at that age to see that the analogy of pigs and wolves is based purely on the rivalrous relationship between the two creatures.

But never mind, we'll add pigs to the list of things we're 'recommended' to not write stories about in this country any more. All this judgement has done is give further credibility to anyone attempting to unfairly alienate or even criminalise someone who does want to write a story about pigs.

Teehee. Three words: supersport, Christian, Forums.

A "senior member" of the christianforums.com website with 793 posts under his belt has continued his chirade against all things logical and tangible in a spiel entitled "Evolutionary Science is a fairytale". [1]

Allow me to dissect his paragraphs, only a little.

Define 'Science'

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

I agree. There is more to anything than putting forth scientific theory.

Those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material — it's metaphysical, which by defintion [sic] is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world.

Indeed, supersport's definition of "science" is in conflict with that held by those who actually practice the, er, science. [2]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines science partially as: "an activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing" or "knowledge, especially that gained through experience". Experience at studying fossil records and empirical exposure to supposedly near-related creatures (e.g. monkeys) which clearly share some human traits is just the first step to understanding where we come from, but it's a step nonetheless.

McGraw Hill's Sci-Tech Encylopedia makes a distinction between "exact" and "descriptive" sciences:

Examples of the former are physics and, to a lesser degree, chemistry; and of the latter, taxonomical botany or zoology. The exact sciences are in general characterized by the possibility of exact measurement. One of the most important tasks of a descriptive science is to develop a method of description or classification that will permit precision of reference to the subject matter.

Houghton Mifflin's Thesaurus classifies science as "known facts, ideas, and skill that have been imparted: education, erudition, instruction, knowledge, learning, scholarship. See knowledge/ignorance."

answers.com's library does include a definition which reads along the lines of "study of physical part of world", but in the context of an interpretation in which the only direct antonym of the word is "art". Neither of these phrases make any reference to metaphysical studies or phenomena, so the definition attributes such studies neither to "science" nor to "not science".

supersport goes on:

"Science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys." What they're attempting to sell the unsuspecting public is not to be found in nature — it's found in their books.

He doesn't make any direct reference to a personal belief in creationism, but given that he's a "Senior Member" of a Christian forum I think it's a fair assumption; it beggars belief that he'd form an argument against opinion based on "it's not to be found in nature; it's found in their books" which describes precisely Christian belief. Not much more and certainly no less.

Besides, just who is he to decide what science "should be"?

As the University of Nottingham's new campus project continues to push on, at least a part of it has become more high-profile. BBC News is reporting that "Aspire" — the planned steel girder sculpture on the Jubilee expansion — will be 60 metres tall, making it "Britain's tallest free-standing work of public art".

Sounds impressive, no? But the BBC is also reporting that the sculpture alone will cost £800,000, which is impressive for different reasons.

When teaching groups aren't striking over pay, student groups are repeatedly commenting on the supposed "lack of funding" for affordable service initiatives, the extortionate rates of University-owned accommodation and the poor-quality University-produced food. That Vice Chancellors can earn more than the British Prime Minister and fund this fairly pointless sculpture, but not see to the needs of their customers and residents, is frankly horrific.

According to Sir Colin Campbell (outgoing Vice Chancellor of the University), "Aspire is about the University and the city making a bold statement about its future, and seeking the positive recognition Nottingham thoroughly deserves."

According to me, the University ought to start by really deserving positive recognition by recognising its shortcomings and that its subsidiaries' "for-profit" business model is not an effective way to run a University. Building a massive great steel pole at £800,000 is not any way to improve a University's reputation or standings.

Besides, I still think my suggestion of "The Obelisk" ought to have won the naming contest.

My installation of Windows Live Messenger has been pretty slow lately, so I figured I might as well upgrade to the latest version.

Of course, the product website does not give any information whatsoever as to the current version number so I had to go through the motions and figure out later if there even is a version more up-to-date than the one I'm currently running. Then I'll be running the most up-to-date client, Microsoft will get their advertising revenue from all the in-client spam and everyone's happy.

Once I'd spent a few moments unticking the "install Windows Live toolbar", "set default search to Live Search", "set homepage to MSN.com" and "spy on me" options that I never asked for in the first place, my download commenced and ended.

And I ran WLInstall.exe. Just what is it that prohibits Microsoft from releasing files with informative, descriptive names?

The first thing I was told was that I'd need to install Microsoft's "critical update" named "Windows Live Update Agent 5.8.02469". Since they only offer it via Windows Update and I haven't patched my system in many blue moons, I realised there and then that installing this Messenger upgrade would involve system updates too.

So, sighing, I headed to windowsupdate.com. Oh, what's that? Firefox is not supported. Of course it isn't. I spent another few moments brushing the dust of my copy of IE6 and getting that to behave properly.

Naturally, though, all my Windows Update ActiveX controls haven't been used in months so they're totally out of date. I was told I'd have to "install Windows Update ActiveX control", and then I was given the sole option to "get the latest Windows Update software."

A message within the web interface proudly proclaimed, "we've made improvements to our website. To download the new version of the software and begin using Windows Update, please click Install Now." About now I was wondering why it is so difficult to stick their "critical update" on the web underneath a normal hyperlink for the world to enjoy. Instead, Microsoft seem to enjoy really wasting my time, requiring bloated system services to be running just to download components.

I updated Windows Update, nearly having a fit when my computer began threatening immediate reboots. I keep Automatic Updates disabled because I like being in control of my own machine, but suddenly Microsoft's yellow security shield was all over the damned place, giving me a right bollocking for my audacity.

Plus, I could have predicted that something would go wrong. "The website has encountered a problem and cannot display the page you are trying to view [Error number: 0x80070020]." This incredibly helpful message greeted me at what was supposed to be the finality of Windows's Windows Update update process.

After closing the non-semantic WU interface and returning directly to windowsupdate.com, I was granted the privilege of a little more information:

"The site cannot continue because one or more of these Windows services is not running: Automatic Updates, Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS), Event Log." Of course, they all were. However, it didn't take long to deduce that Microsoft were opposed to my having set the "Automatic Updates" service from "automatic" to "manual". Temporarily reversing this personal choice finally allowed me into their website.

About now was when Windows Live Messenger helpfully informed me, for the first time in almost a year, an update was available. Thanks.

Finally within grasp of the sticky bowels of Windows Update, I was presented with only one possible download for the time being: a secretive, unidentified upgrade to Microsoft's controversial "Windows Genuine Advantage validation tool". No thanks.

So I gave up. One day I'll move on from WLM entirely, but for the time being Microsoft will continue to reap in revenue from the advertisements clumsily strewn across my IM client. In the meantime, they will have to make do with feelings of hatred directed at them, over the pond and over the horizon.

Bastards. All this for a frakking instant messenger.