![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
barringtonContact lenses are weird. Especially when your prescription is something like -3.5 (for astigmatism, my short-sightedness is minor and my long-sightedness in the other eye apparently more or less insignificant), and the highest prescription you can get for trial disposables is -2.25. So everything is much clearer, but still not quite right. I'm not sure I like how they feel on my eyes, either; I'll give them a few more wears for proper testing, but I'm still tossing up whether to get them.
Now, others (hi![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
p_cat!) have already pointed out that Alan Jones has been axed from Channel 9's Today programme (The Age), but I think the worrying thing is that the spokesperson refers to him as "a voice of authority and an integral player in the setting of Australian's news agenda". How does someone come to wield influence that, rightly or wrongly, can be described in such terms? He's not a statesman, or an expert in an important field, or an established leader of a community. He's just opinionated and aware of public opinion - at least where it strongly agrees or disagrees with his own. That's my reading, anyway; but then I thought for years he was Alan Jones the racing driver, whereas he's actually an ex-rugby (union) player. The list of his offences is long, though, and an account of any background or experience that justifies his exalted media position (at least in Sydney) is severely lacking.
It's a little reassuring to know that he only made it as high as number 78 on the Reader's Digest list of Australia's most trusted public persons, though he's just in front of Julia Gillard and five spots ahead of Bob Brown, which is less comforting. Still, I'm heartened to see several doctors and scientists in the top 20. (Not that I take the whole thing too seriously; the 100 mentioned were the only ones asked about, to "a representative sample of 750 Australian adults" who ranked their trustworthiness out of 10. Still, John Howard was rather lower than Kevin Rudd or the other politicians I mentioned, so perhaps that's pleasant support for the possibility of "annihilation"...)
I love numbers assigned to random properties. According to the analysis behind the cut, my "weirdness level" is 22 (lower than the LiveJournal average of 27) and my writing style is "intellectual". It's fascinating; there's even a pie graph!
So, barrington, your LiveJournal reveals...
You are... 0% unique and 18% herdlike
(partly because you, like everyone else, enjoy women).
When it comes to friends you are popular. In terms of the way you relate to people, you are wary of trusting strangers.
Your writing style (based on a recent public entry) is intellectual.
You are weirder than 48% of other LJers.)
Find out what your weirdness level is!
Now, others (hi
p_cat!) have already pointed out that Alan Jones has been axed from Channel 9's Today programme (The Age), but I think the worrying thing is that the spokesperson refers to him as "a voice of authority and an integral player in the setting of Australian's news agenda". How does someone come to wield influence that, rightly or wrongly, can be described in such terms? He's not a statesman, or an expert in an important field, or an established leader of a community. He's just opinionated and aware of public opinion - at least where it strongly agrees or disagrees with his own. That's my reading, anyway; but then I thought for years he was Alan Jones the racing driver, whereas he's actually an ex-rugby (union) player. The list of his offences is long, though, and an account of any background or experience that justifies his exalted media position (at least in Sydney) is severely lacking. It's a little reassuring to know that he only made it as high as number 78 on the Reader's Digest list of Australia's most trusted public persons, though he's just in front of Julia Gillard and five spots ahead of Bob Brown, which is less comforting. Still, I'm heartened to see several doctors and scientists in the top 20. (Not that I take the whole thing too seriously; the 100 mentioned were the only ones asked about, to "a representative sample of 750 Australian adults" who ranked their trustworthiness out of 10. Still, John Howard was rather lower than Kevin Rudd or the other politicians I mentioned, so perhaps that's pleasant support for the possibility of "annihilation"...)
I love numbers assigned to random properties. According to the analysis behind the cut, my "weirdness level" is 22 (lower than the LiveJournal average of 27) and my writing style is "intellectual". It's fascinating; there's even a pie graph!
You are... 0% unique and 18% herdlike
(partly because you, like everyone else, enjoy women).
When it comes to friends you are popular. In terms of the way you relate to people, you are wary of trusting strangers.
Your writing style (based on a recent public entry) is intellectual.
Your overall weirdness is: 22
(The average level of weirdness is: 27.You are weirder than 48% of other LJers.)
Find out what your weirdness level is!
