My father used to say "you're like a fart in a colander" to indicate uselessness. I don't know why that has just popped into my head or even why I'm bothering telling you lot, but there it is.
I think it's about time we invented some sort of pants-catalytic-converter. We take pains to minimise every other bad smell our bodies produce, so it would be quite in keeping.
(st d) I think burping noisily is more offensive (in a polite setting) than farting. You can always do it silently and the "product" is inoffensive. No-one need know. But you can't get away with a fart, however discreetly expelled. (Projoy) Now, there's a challenge I can't ignore, as a chemist. The simplest answer would be an appropriately-shaped pellet of activated charcoal taped to the bum in a gastight manner. It would need to be kept dry and be easily removable for obvious reasons. It would eventually (a month or so) become "full", so to speak, but could easily be regenerated by heating in an oven, the only problem being that everything it had absorbed would be driven off. Extractor on full blast, I feel. snorgle has got in while I was writing this and the link says it's been done already. I bet it's activated charcoal, though. Just a question of how you fix it.
[snorgle] There's a satisfied customer quote on that site: "The feeling of security!" from one Julie Anderson, which I initially read as Julie Andrews. Now there's an image.
The whole problem with that product is the need to make the underwear airtight. Ewies. I did read once upon a time about tablets you can take (which I believe are also charcoal) to nullify smells. Any health risk?
[snorgs] Thanks - it's a fantastic site with a wealth of snigger potential. 'Wear them for the one you love' springs to mind as a suitable phrase for examination, given that possibly the most irritating and in-yer-face flatulence occurs beneath the duvet ...
I was supposed to be appearing as part of a work of art at Chelsea Art College for a final-year show. The artist invited me and some friends to be an installation, but it got cancelled due to lack of interest from other quarters. So I'm going to Wales, which I think is an appropriate response.
[Chalky] It wasn't that weird, really, kind of lazy. She just wanted a couple of groups of people to stand around and get served canapés by waiters and chat. I assume the idea was that by putting me and my friends in a gallery we, and our social interactions would have been decontextualised so we became the subject of the viewer's critical analysis. Something like that.
Which, I have to say, is the oldest trick in the book, only slightly leavened by the fact that standing around eating canapés and chatting is exactly what looks natural in a gallery, so we'd have been decontextualised and contextualised all at once, which may be a bit self-defeating.
[Projoy] But it would make the gallery seem less empty than it might otherwise, especially if the show was in danger of being cancelled for lack of interest. The idea occurs to me of an art show in which it only transpires afterwards that everyone there was an exhibit, no-one actually came to see it.
[Darren] I should think about, say, thousands of people have done something very similar to it. [CdM] Indeed. What else to discuss? It might have been quite funny if we'd been submitted as a portfolio piece and allowed to give the examiner a mark out of ten.
Has anyone done the "art" of having an empty room, getting hired people to stand around in this room looking at and discussing the pieces of art that aren't really there and then letting the public come in and be slightly bewildered?
Difficult to make plausible, I'd say, because most people move around galleries in silence or talking only in hushed tones. You'd somehow have to have your actors miming that there is art there, either by staring fixedly at particular points on the wall, or taking very obvious detours around things, craning neck etc.
Probably simpler just to issue a press release saying you've done something where the art and the audience were the same thing. Again, saves a lot of mucking about.
[Chalks] Are you organising another pub quiz? We came across some interesting statistics today in 'Fleet News' - did you know... - Royal Mail has 25,636 vans in the UK, plus mopeds and lorries - Its annual mileage forcast is 590 million miles (18,437 miles per vehicle) - and it operates 115,000 post boxes. useful for that 'nearest million' tiebreaker question ;o)
[penny penpenpen] Hey! When I was at EMAP , we 'launched' Fleet News - my mother worked on that publication for years and years :-) Good to hear some stats though, but doubt if I'll get the chance to use them this season, which ends in a few weeks for an Easter break. Did I really say that word? Easter? [nights] a pedometer might help :-)
[Chalky] EMAP, eh? I used to get a magazine they did... almost certainly a computer one (but I can't remember which), and definitely before all computer magazines turned crap.
They do er, "Steam Railway". I sent them a load of B&W pics I took in the late fifties as they had expressed an interest. They forgot about them. Then they lost them. Then they found them, and finally they sent them back. This took nearly 3 years. Amazingly, "Steam Railway" is quite a good magazine, if you're into that sort of thing.
That's hardly surprising, considering the vast quantity of royalty-free photography they obviously have access to (a.k.a. to which they obviously have access). Sounds like a tenderfull of fun and I'd order it right away but I can't afford the fee until my subscription to "B&W Steam Photography" expires/evaporates/condenses.
Rosie] Amazingly? I think "if you're into that sort of thing" means that the magazine would be quite good by definition - does it have much competition?