Sausages

One aspect of food packaging has irritated me for some time. Most packaging comes with a 'serving suggestion' picture on it. These pictures fall into one of four categories.

One: Not irritating; and thus not interesting.

Two: The lovely. These pictures show an item of culinary delight which includes the ingredient inside the packaging. Unfortunately, the packaging does not include a recipe indicating how the contents become the whole dish or what other items are required. This is more of a disappointment than an irritation.

Three: The self-evident. The tub of ice-cream with a picture of two scoops of ice-cream in a bowl with a spoon. Well I was hardly going to eat it off of the floor, was I?

Four: The imbecilic. I recently purchased some Sainsbury's Taste The Difference pork and bramley apply sausages. They are very nice sausages, as are all in that range, I thoroughly recommend them.

On the packaging is the inevitable serving suggestion picture. The way in which the designers recommend eating six pork sausages is thus: A bramley with a sprig of sage. That is correct, the serving suggestion for a packet of sausages does not include any sausages.

I can quite understand wanting to put a picture of a bramley apple on a packet of sausages which have bramleys in them. That would be logical and a sensible way of decorating these sausages. Putting the words 'serving suggestion' on this picture does not do anyone any good.

Just in case you missed my point above: The serving suggestion for a packet of sausages. Does not. Include. Any. Sausages.

This is absurd. Completely absurd.

England versus Western Australia

The BBC match report of the England versus Western Australia warm-up game.

Geraint Jones, in the team as a specialist batsman, scores a primary.

Chris Read, wicketkeeper-batsman, scores fifty nine.

Richard Dawkins, a continuation

A reader of my blog made a few comments about my treatment of Richard Dawkins in my previous post. My response to those comments is below. I have edited them slightly in order that they make more sense away from the context of the reader's comments. Also, they are slightly disjointed, again because of the lack of context, back I think it all makes sense.

Before my reply though, I would like to add that the previous post was intended as a humorous image of hell. My intent was not to attack either Richard Dawkins or Ian Paisley, that was merely an added bonus.

My reply:

I don't take issue with the content of Dawkins' work. For the most part I agree with it; in the original post I explicitly recognised his ability as a biologist. His views on religion may be exaggerated, but I have no argument with the core of his arguments. Naturally, as a believer, there are some things I outright disagree with.

What I find ironic is his attitude and method of delivery. He makes a big show of being the rational scientist with an open mind fighting the evils of the superstitious religious nonsense. Yet he is as closed to differing opinions as the con-evo southern baptist, the hardcore papist or even your typical middle of the road liberal Anglican. He is as much a religious fanatic as Paisley is. I do not hesitate to call either bigoted.

Absolutely many religious movements have been vicious, nasty things. Some get it right, but they don't tend to last long. But that is true of any organised piece of humanity, be it a government, a public service or a bunch or randoms in the pub. The problem isn't religion, or God; it is humans.

That in itself is another danger of the science can solve and cure everything camp. Science can't by itself, it needs to be pointed in the right direction. That pointing may come from God, or it may not, but to uphold science as God leads to the assumption that something that can be done, should be done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, napalm and Portsmouth say otherwise.