1a2bcio8

Mention personal development that is very particular or unique to you. Try and relate that in some way to your interest in or understanding of the subject you are applying for. Make the statement VERY subjective in the sense you have put forward your own reasoning, analysis or interest. You have to show that you can relate yourself, your thinking and experience to the content of your desired degree. That's essentially (beyond what Tomm says) what I would emphasise in a personal statement - it worked for me.

Great Stuff, I shall do that. I'm heading your way on Friday and should be about for a week although I'm not sure what days I'm free yet due to family/gf commitments. Are you still without job?

I think you placed this topic in the wrong place my friend.... Are you riding today Gilly? edit: and then I noticed your realisation of having put this in the wrong place - my bad

I'm off on holiday next week and will be near and visiting Lime Regis. I was just wondering if there are any trials riders there that would be up for meeting for a ride?

Fish eyes can be ok though, you just need the right type according to your camera. My fish eye has no such distortion.

Thanks for the advice fellas. I chose the zoo forks. Because they were heavier my mind made the assumption this probably equated to more strength than the Viz!. Probably wrong though...

Need to know the editing softward before anyone can advice you. In the future though, just use the zoom function on your camera but only zoom a fraction or so. Similar to what you are currently suggesting except you won't lose any quality.

Used the search function but to no immeadiate avail, so can anyone tell me of their experiences with forks but specfically which ones tend to be the strongest at the moment? I broke my echo urbans front hooking and although I've had them for over 6 months I've not been riding a great deal until recently, perhaps the last 3 months - this seems like a short time to me. In fairness though, my hooking is a bit heavy these days as I'm out of practice. So what's the current fork situation? I could do with a pair that are supportive of my dispractice! Cheers in advance

I started doing something similar about 4 years back but I started instead with front wheel starting on the floor and gave the pedals a jab to front touch up. Managed it to about bar hight I think. Yours looks good though Just noticed you mentioned me, my bad

C'mon people, Swindon isn't that bad

The place I went to and am going again was in the countryside away from noise. You're not supposed to converse with anyone there and you spend most of your time meditating or just observing your surroundings. I came back feeling incredibly peaceful. My intention is to do it for three months next March but I'm also going again in about 6 weeks. Highly recommended to individuals who are interested in trying to understand themselves and are looking for some contentment with the simple (but fascinating) fact that you exist.

I would suggest several things. One, that the absence of stimulus allows awareness of concerns or anxiety that are otherwise distracted by the continual stimulus that you expose yourself to. Two, potentially at the same time also, you have dependence on stimulus. You'll notice that in this society people continually move from one stimulating thing to the next. You do it so much that the quiet becomes alien - out of the norm. We're often scared of novelty. The thing is, the quiet is absolutely beautiful when you get used to it (again). I specifically go on silent retreat because it quietens your mind and allows for peace with you and not just your environment. It can be very profound in fact.

Mint, great job Mike

Think I might be on a bit of this...

I'm not sure how you mean because Kris is wrong, I am wrong. You need to be more specific in the sense that you mean. Regarding language I never said it was the "be-all and end-all". In fact I'm agreeing with you what you're saying there. But it doesn't mean that our usage of language doesn't affect our perceptions because we use it in such a way as to, through representation, warp the way the relations between things in a situation actually are. It makes sense to me. As far as I can tell you are saying that when we consider a subject or situation (this is your meaning of "subject" I am assuming) people can misunderstand that situation. I think this is what is occuring in terms of understanding the relations between where people think value lies and what underpins the nature of value. But I think that you are suggesting, in terms of music, a misunderstanding of that situation with regard to its intrinsic value in terms of good and bad. I am still continually witnessing this assumption with you and others that there is good or bad value of the music within itself such as if the musicians miss a few notes despite you also saying something otherwise. Actually Mark it's an analogy and if you take the time to consider it, it might help you understand the point I'm trying to make. In this instance, language has decided the reaction of different individuals to the same event (a cat). Their reaction has been different according to different language. In the same way, an individuals response to a piece of music in terms or pleasure or displeasure differs according to the 'language' of their subjectivity or peculiarity, so to speak. Now they may well share some of the same 'language' in coming to like or dislike but ultimately the net consequence will be decided according to the totality of their subjectivity and the aspects that differ from somebody else - it is likey to differ between individuals in the same language differs between countries. Unless we stringently agree to a set of rules by which to judge something, this will always occur - but then who can really change their enjoyment of music which leads to a definition of good or bad, byadopting some rules by which to judge it? If I judge hip-hop according to the rules of classical music I'd probably say that hip-hop is bad music but that wouldn't change my enjoyment and my saying it is good in that sense. Typically I think people are unaware that they are arguing about their reaction to a situation based on different 'language', so to speak. Now consider the analogy again. It's only when we agree to a set of stringent rules we begin go get somewhere with deciding between us if something is good or bad, right or wrong. But there are no ultimate rules to enjoying music or being convinved by an actor - we all certainly haven't agree upon them like we do with mathematics. All that happens is some event is labelled as actor or music, we watch it or hear it and then based on our feelings or thoughts of it we say, "I am convinced by the actor" or "I like this music because the bass makes me feel nice". Other people can say the complete opposite at the same time. They are all right in so much as they accurately describe the way they feel. My point is that people always argue against each other in this sense, suggesting that the way somebody is feeling is somehow wrong because it doesn't correlate with them in relation to their terms? See above but understand that analogy by definition is never the same situation but carries with it enough similarity to potentially illuminate understanding. The point stands; despite people using different systems of judgement they argue as though they are speaking the same lanuage! It's like my assuming that a French person is really trying to speak English and so every time he say "Chat", I say "No! it is a cat!" and the French person thinks I am trying to speak French and so he says again, "Chat!". People are more than welcome to engage in this type of behaviour, if you want to! See above. I think people are suggesting that others are experiencing or trying to understand things in the same. And yes this is what we are talking about. I certainly can be a pedant That's what reading academic philosophy will do to you. Philosophy engages in trying to clear up misconception and can attempt so to a fine degree. But I don't think people are saying what you suggest and I don't feel myself as being overly pedantic. I think this is quite a large mistake easily done because of how intrinsically pervading our langauge usage is. Sure, but then if the language isn't so great at describing then we run into potential confusion. The point I keep trying to make which I don't think you're entirely understanding. I prefer to avoid confusion where possible, I don't know about you? The point is that when we say "it" we create a phantom in order to say that rain is occuring. Show me this "it" Mark? I'm just trying to bring emphasis to language and how it contains problems such as the one this discussion is centred around. Yes it still may indicate an event but it may also create problems - the construction or thought addition to a situation. If we are dependent on language to think of the world and we use bad language, then ultimately we think of the world badly! This is why I think you don't understand what I'm trying to communicate. People DO argue that music is shit or not shit. They do this, I strongly believe because they think each other is describing how the music actually is alongside the same usage of terms with which to judge that music. Objectively, the situation is that somebody experienced it as this or experienced it as that. Trying to argue that somebody else actually experienced it differently to how they felt it seems more than slightly nonsensical. If I say to you "I feel good" would you really say to me "No actually you feel shit". Most likley you would not do this unless you knew me to be in complete denial based on some evidence that presented itself. But this is what is happening. This situation is so well ingrained into our behaviour, we are often like a fish in water and miss it.

What I'm saying Mark is that I think people often (not always!) believe they are judging something on the same basis, according to the same rules (when they are not) and then they implicitly or explicitly argue that the other person should share their view because they've understand the true nature of the thing (relating back to the influence of inadequate language usage). I think we certainly should share our understanding or feelings about how we feel in response to experiences but I think the expectation that people have neccesarily shared them in that same way is erroneous. Consequently, if people haven't shared your basis yet you argue with them as though they have, you have made an incorrect assumption. Previously Kris seemed to suggest that good acting is judged on hollywood standards. Yet I don't judge it that way. I just obseve acting and get a feeling about if it convinced me or not - this can differ from person to person. When you say somebody might be wrong about being misinformed about the subject you kind've imply that there is a right subject? People can have their own subjects with which to view the world and this is the point. We all have our own terms. Perhaps an analogy is two people from different cultures pointing at a cat and each individual saying the word that indicates cat in their respective languages. Would you find point in their arguing that each person had the right word for a cat? Or would each person be right in their own terms? Basically, the question is, do you want to argue about the goodness of something when we are both deciding what is good in different ways? Ultimately, this is your choice! I'm only trying to point out how I think the situation is structured. From this you can turn argument to just simply expression of how you feel. There is no need to try and (implicitly or explicitly) convince somebody that they've come to the wrong conclusion about their experience of something. Yeh sure it saves time but I think it also warps our perception of the situation. It's well known that language shapes thought - in fact they are kind've co-dependent or asepcts of each other. Certain Asian languages are better equiped to deal with the concepts pf quantum mechanics because they lack the subject-predicate nature of our language where we adjunct qualities to things. An interesting example is energy (the battery has energy) which almost seems like something which exists in things as its own entity but actually energy is the behaviour of things (energy is a type of thing that something does). I used to think energy was something additional - like a soul almost I guess and this situation arose through our language. Also, think of the expression, "it is raining". What is this it? How strange! You say you have viewed badness of goodness in music but I really have to emphasise that I think you have not. That was some event which an idea of goodness or badness arose in response! Refer to my description of the problems with language and this point should become apparant - "the music is bad" (subject-predicate) suggests the badness is in the music. But remove yourself from the situation and is any goodness or badness still with the music? With regards to culture and society defining our rules I would say this is true to an extent in consideration of the peculiar asepcts of an individual separate to society and its ideas. I think on this point is why you are comfortable with saying that there is evidence of something being done badly within itself, but this is still according to your terms, even if shared by a greater proportion of the society. There is no bad separate to you. Perhaps somebody loves musicians to f**k up! Then somebody experiences good as a reaction to that f**k up Even if everyone agreed, this would still only make it bad in terms of lots of individuals with constructed ideas. I really need to stop, I'm seriously having trouble concentrating now. Will probably have to amend in the morning!

Yes that's kinda right. And I think you've previously told me off for that Mark but I think people totally forget. I frequently hear people arguing about matters of subjective opinion because of a misudnerstanding of the reality of their situation - for instance that this song is crap or good. Our language does not very well represent the situation. Instaed of saying I have good feelings or thoughts from my experience of this music, we say this music is good, attributing our feeling or thoughts to the thing itself. But have you ever seen the goodness of badness within something? We'd save ourselves a f**kload of time if we realised this. We'd also be far more understanding to peoples views. I forget about it all the time and it's definitely easier to recognise it in others than yourself. I really have to emphasise though how I think people forget this a hell of a lot - I know you disagree with me Mark! When people can be wrong is when we lay down a set of rules and consider something in relation to the terms of those rules. Such as the laying down of mathematical rules and then the expression of mathematics. The latter has to conform to the former in order to be right (or good). Now, we each have our own type of rules just like mathematics on an subjective and intersubjective level. But we never escape the subjective even with a group of subjects.

Will do chief

Ok, I'm convinced

The trouble is all current experience is mediated by past experience to some degree. The simple situation of dividing up the world requires conceptualisation and therefore pre-conceptualisation when we re-experience a type of event - the absence of pre-conceptualisation would mean attempting to figure stuff out over and over again. Even the idea of this and that (dualism) requires conceptualisation. If we remove the idea of this and that you'd get lost unable to divide the world and make any sense of it. So we are always bringing to any situation, ideas about it and judging it using those ideas or concepts. Essentially I think your misconception is with the standard fallacy of misascribing qualities to the thing or event within itself. Personally though I have never see this badness or goodness in anything. Unfortunately our language is limited in the sense that it is structured as such to indicate that qualities exist within things. For example, "it is good" suggests that "it" has an additional "good" but where is this good in the "it"? I have never seen this good in anything. Has anyone ever really seen good? Or alternatively have people just had good feelings or thoughts in response to the observation of some event that was perceived in certain terms laid fown by past experience (culture and its medium, language)? The latter is all I have experienced not the former. Based on our language use and what it implies, we tend to forget that we've never seen these qualities within something and that we construct our reaction to what we see and think that we are then actually finding qualities in things separate to ourselves and our terms. With regards to trials riders, again this relates to the terms we set down prior to watching somebody ride. If you watch a trials rider with no pre-conceptions you won't even see a trials rider because you need preconceptions to see him as such. Furthermore, your evaluation has be to constructed along ideas such as "a good rider can do a 54" sidehop a worse rider cannot". These are made up ideas that come individually or in this instance will probably be shared by almost everyone. Regardless of how pervading this made up view is though, it's still made up and I can disagree and be perfectly valid in the terms I provide as a separate individual. I can't write anymore though and furry muff if you don't agree. Please take some time to think about it though!

Sure, if you subscribe to those "aspects of hollywood style". Fatpants however is subscribing to some other standard and in accordance with that, he finds the acting good. My point is it depends on your disposition and the ideas you carry. In terms of singing, if I enjoy the singing, to me, it is good singing. I've heard plenty of singing styles over the years that in terms of achieving the "correct" notes are off but in terms of my enjoyment I have labelled as good. It really depends on you and the rules you (consciously or otherwise) use to judge a situation, which makes the whole thing relative and in so much as you are using different rules, arguments about good and bad are nonsensical. Even when you talk of the majority this is still something called "intersubjectivity" which means lots of individuals sharing the same idea. Even if we agree it still has an individual basis and anyone outside of that majority can still have a differing and valid value judgement based on their individual disposition that is still correct based on their rules.

I would strongly disagree. If I find somebodies performace superb and you say otherwise how is it that one of us is wrong? I think what we need to do is consider what acting means. Essentially it means to convince a person who watches you that the situation is other than it is (in some sense). Now, if I am convinced by one actor and you are not then between myself and the actor I have experienced what I would label good acting (the language we have is a bit poo for this) and between yourself and actor you have experienced what you wuold label bad acting. You have to consider that part of the experience involves YOU and/or ME and not just the actor. It is meaningless to talk of acting without the viewing of acting but viewing is a relative experience that carries with it the peculiarities of somebodies disposition. You can't know of stuff within itself, only in terms of yourself which makes the situation relative. This is clearly evident by the fact you two have different feelings about the acting. You are both right in so much as you refer to your own experience of being convinced or otherwise.

You chaps might want to avoid a fairly pointless activity here. There is no good acting within itself, only what we each individually find convincing. That's all that happens - no recognition of some inherent truth in what you see.

I would suggest that there's a bit of culturalism going on here whereby people are judging the merits of a film a priori (look it up) based on the people it's supposed to represent. Of course, you're entitled to do that and I shall not judge you - only analyze - but you might want to consider the type of 'ism you're engaged in and try to imagine if it's much different from such things as racism, sexism or homosexualism (I made that last one up but you get the point). Just on the off chance you're interested in trying to gain some consistency and sense with your perceptions and ideas.

Although I've experienced only minor embarassement from this story I shall share it for potential amusement factor. Basically I had returned from an excellent ride in Bristol although at the end of that day I had torn a ligament in my ankle having rolled it. I'd taken a fair few painkillers and was feeling a bit hazy by the time I was home - my excuse. It had been a very hot day and I really needed a shower but all my clean boxers were still wet from having been washed. I consequently decided that placing one pair into the oven for drying would be a great idea. After turning the oven upto around 100C I went upstairs to capture the days footage. Obviously being totally engrossed in those new lines I'd performed that day I totally forgot about the boxers until about 30-40 mins later. Limp running downstairs on remembering I found the entire lower floor filled with smoke to the degree that when I ran into the living room I had to turn around and run away again. The smoke instantly burned my eyes and lungs. Obviously though this was not a situation I could leave to diffuse itself. So I forced myself through, tears streaming and coughing to the oven where I extracted the half-remaining, flaming cardboard like boxer shorts I'd previously placed into the oven. They were stiff as a board but mostly burnt away. Fortunately I managed to air the smoke away before my mum got back that night and she was surprisingly unaware of what had happened. I had my bmx stolen in the same way where i placed it out the front of the house and went to turn my computer off but ended up stitting on the computer for 30mins until I remembered about the bike. Legged it to the bike but it was gone...