Question 1.

Cosmologists tell us that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else.

Then they break into discussions about how galaxies collide. Durr? Please explain.

Question 2.

The great genius, Stephen Hawking, tells us that time travel might be possible. My problem with the whole concept of time travel is that in either case (moving forward or moving backward in time), one would need to also predict the exact position of planet Earth at the target time.

Otherwise one would end up in empty space somewhere in Earth's orbit.

H.G. Wells didn't seem to spot that problem. Police phone box? Hmmm...

Question 3.

The universe is now generally accepted to be full of stars which have planetary systems revolving around them. Also, "The Goldilocks Zone" describes the correct orbital distance from any star where temperature conditions are just right for the existence of water on a planet. In these zones, some Earth-type planets can and probably do exist. Water means there is a chance that life can and probably will evolve. Even in extreme conditions, as proven on Earth, life at some basic level can and will exist; the evidence is overwhelming.

On this planet, several mass extinctions have occured, commonly by asteroid collisions. Apparently a hit from a massive cosmic ray burst will do the same thing but more thoroughly. After each extinction event here on Earth, some species survived in much reduced numbers but evolution continued. What would be, would be, eventually. Most sane people, until something else emerges as proveable, still agree with Darwin.

Asteroids must be common in every galaxy and extinction collision events in the "The Goldilocks Zone" must therefore be inevitable, along with their consequences. On this planet we've had several chances for things to start over again. The result has been the evolution of what we have ended up with, which is a bi-symmetrical upright biped dominant mammal species with intelligence, namely, us. Nature just followed the rules.

Whilst I can accept that, given a different chemical composition for atmosphere and land, a planet could and probably would give rise to life forms which would appear very alien to us, I cannot see any reason why any Earth-type planet would evolve "little green men". In my opinion, given the same conditions as we have here, at this stage of development on any other Earth-type planet, what you'd end up with is exactly us.

Humans.

That's not to say we get any further but this does give Jesus a similar task to Santa Claus. So many planets, so many peoples, so little time...

Question 4. (something of a rant...)

O.K. This one might seem a bit trivial but it drives me nuts with frustration. Obviously the whole of the media is driven by profit, (especially Sky) but I can't understand why it continues to be allowed that there is no overall standard for sound decibel levels between programmes. The adverts drive us all crazy with their repetitive banality - it's all a tax loss tactic; but all the advertisers seem to compete with each other to be the loudest.

Where's the (panic!) f***ing remote control? Even B.B.C. can't seem to conform to any standard across their various stations, especially on radio. Nobody seems to care, even though I suspect that just about every listener is thoroughly irritated by the problem of constantly having to adjust the volume upon switching stations.

Of course, I could connect a stereo compressor in line between my T.V. and the sound system I listen to it through but why should I? Nuts to that.

In the case of Sky, one quickly and of necessity learns which channel takes its advertising breaks at different times to the others, enabling a temporary safe haven, allowing for the damage limitation for protection of average intelligence. Mindless repetion of crass hard sell simply doesn't cut any ice at all with anyone with more than amoebic mental powers. But then again, how many millions of U.K. residents buy the tabloid press every day, "read their stars" and are also (rather worryingly) still allowed to vote?

Then there's the question of T.V. screen aspect ratio. Which intellectual plankton is responsible for control of the height / width ratio of the transmitted image of most of the T.V. stations? It is obviously possible to manage this, as occaisionally they get it right, enabling viewers without the widest screens to see the whole picture, without losing a significant percentage either side. More irritation but they obviously don't care.

Question 5.

Mobile phones. Love or hate them (and I've belonged to both camps), have become a necessity if one drives a vehicle, especially. The lunatics have taken over the roads - but maybe that was ever so? Upon purchasing my mobile, I was quickly persuaded of the benefits of text messaging, not something I ever thought would happen!

Problem was, though, there appeared to be no apostrophe available on the keyboard. Several time-served texting friends told me there had to be an apostrophe there somewhere but none of them could find it either. Returning to the mobile phone shop, I explained my problem with this (I love the English language and cannot bring myself to simply go without such an important part of standard punctuation) and the arrogant twerp of a salesman who sold me the thing also said that obviously there was an apostrophe there somewhere. He couldn't find it either but his response was that this is the 21st century and I should get used to it!

Resisting the temptation to ram the thing up inside his 21st century body, I went away seething steam. It took a few days of exploration through the various sub-menus to actually discover that there really was an apostrophe. It was buried three layers down in the depths of the software and takes about 15 seconds to access and insert. All part of the creeping dumbing-down with which we are now surrounded, I guess. My grammar survives...

Question 6.

As I said before, cosmologists tell us that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. This doesn't seem to apply to modern day drivers on the road (in the U.K. anyway). There isn't a driving trip that I take without some pillock tail-gating me obsessively, waiting for the very first opportunity to overtake and speed off into the distance and disappear, only to be there waiting at the next junction or lights.

Now, I don't drive unnecessarily slowly and will happily do the regulation 70 m.p.h. limit on the motorways but I like my car and don't see the need to thrash the nuts off it at every opportunity. Apparently I'm virtually alone in this mental approach to life. Ho-hum...

Question 7.

More trivia but annoying trivia it is, nonetheless. Hay fever is something from which, thankfully, I do not suffer but I have the reverse kind of condition. Every autumn, my brain turns to what appears to be water and attempts to exit from my head via my nose. No tissue is sufficient to contain the buckets full of transparent, low-viscosity nastiness that is generated. It goes on all day, every day. This continues until the springtime when it stops, just as everybody else starts to get Hay fever.

Why is this? What is going on? Maybe this wouldn't happen in a warmer climate...

Question 8.

Possibly the most annoying television production quirk which crops up alarmingly frequently. Yer average tabloid reader or soap watcher would probably never question or realise how patronising this stupidity is. What I refer to is usually seen in those "Lifestyle" programmes where somebody knocks on the door of the household. The occupier opens the door but the camera is already inside. Aaaaaarrrgh!

Worst of all from the same genre is the expedition to the Amazon Rainforest (typically). "Our time is up here and so we must say goodbye to this primitive tribe who are still living in the Stone Age". Cut to camera shot of boat retreating downstream taken from the river bank. Durrr...

Question 9.

Don't read beyond this point if you are easily offended, a football fan or "gay" (surely the wrong word).

OK; I am a narrow-minded bigot and proud of it but several things about humanity make me squirm with absolute nausea. As far as I'm concerned, there is only one proper sport and that is Archery. Unfortunately it isn't really a spectator sport but it is so primal (being the third invention after fire and the wheel) that it deserves to be experienced by everyone. Again, unfortunately, that will never happen. The bow most likely gave rise to the first pitched musical stringed instrument, too.

No-one has has ever "fired" an arrow. Guns fire projectiles; archers "shoot" arrows. Nevertheless, nearly every documentary on T.V. dedicated to archery fails to research properly the terminologly and consistently refer to "firing" arrows. Words fail me. Twats.

Instead, the majority of the world's population seems to be obsessed with a bunch of 22 over-paid twats kicking a ball around a field, much to the delight and hysterical excitement of their so obviously dim-witted fans with no life at all. Sad, so sad. Please don't indoctrinate your children with this empty-headedness. When the Aztecs played this game, at least the penalty for losing was death.

We can put a man on the moon but, as a race, we suck really badly.

Also, I really have had enough of being told that male sodomy is natural and good. It isn't. Rats in confined captivity will often eventually turn to homosexuality but in a free world, it is against nature. Men kissing each other on T.V. just makes me feel sick. Alongside this, where did the current fashion for that stupid turned-up fringe on male haircuts come from?. However...

The genius that is Stephen Fry mitigates my blinkered vision.

Question 10.

Religion. Durr?