Another paradox?

I don't really encourage debate here. I want to make you consider a different point of view, but do not want to have a serious argument.

So I never tend to end posts with a question along the lines of "what do you think?"

But the main reason that I don't end my notes with a question is only the same reason that the following of a link is always optional and not the reason for the post. That is, however short, every post should be an independent cohesive article in itself, it should not need either an internal diversion or an external answer to make it complete.

So each post should be self-sufficient without a comment. However, not only would I like more people to read this, but I also genuinely want to get your comments. Hmmm.

The Big Title

Why did I name all this Common Sense in the first place? Because I maintain that even the most complicated developments usually follow very basic statistical rules, and it is only ignorance, delusion, cowardice or psychotic denial that fuel nonsensical models of reality. But although the phrase may have been original and accurate in 1776, today it has been over-used to the point where it is losing impact. So what else could I have called this?

Rana's Gently Holistic Detection Agency - accurate, and it reflects the "fundamental interconnectedness" of everything here, but it's possibly too derivative and too personal

I Don't Believe in Ghosts - well that would have been the unusual title for my newspaper column or book if I had been a famous footballer

Uncommon Sense - nice, but it seems that many others already think they own the phrase.

Simple Answers to Complicated Questions - I like that, it is what we strive for, and it also echoes Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Hmm, I'm ok for now, but it's never too late to change ...

Reason or treason

Things that are valued are limited. Most people value uncluttered fields and woodland, the traditional British countryside. But if you believe that some people should have privileged access to that woodland just because their ancestors beat up your ancestors, then you are denying us those limited resources. You cannot claim that every child should have equal opportunity if you also claim that some children should have privileged opportunity.

By the way, tourists do not come to Britain to see the royal family. Tourists do not see the royal family. But imagine how many more tourists would come to Britain if they could walk around the actual rooms where the royal family used to live!

The Queen may be doing a good job, a well rewarded job. But imagine that the Queen, Charles and William were in a terrible accident. I'm not sick, you're only imagining, not hoping. I guess then we would be subjects of King Harry. Would you bow before him?

No title here

Someone may be born into royalty but not deserve national adulation, but someone deserving national adulation may need to accept royalty to accept the title.

Just as when eating somewhere new I am searching for the perfect meal, when standing on the edge of the penalty area with the ball at my feet I am searching for the perfect goal, so when writing here I am searching for the perfect way to blog.

Many people would say there is no perfect way to blog, every meal ends up in the same place and every goal counts the same in the end. But I still believe that it is worthwhile to strive for it.

And I have said before that I am concerned about the placement and usage of every word in every post, but unfortunately that has not always been the case with the titles. I tend to write what I need to say, then slap a title on at the end.

However, occasionally some titles just fit properly. Just look at the last few. The last question tied in the hype and mystery surrounding the last Harry Potter novel with what I think is the epitome of the short story. The dyslexic Belgian was a term coined by the Bengali comic who was the subject of the post. And Representation was perhaps the purest example of a word that exactly conveyed the essence of the article.

But I still haven't got a title here. A tabloid editor would have started with one, and a big donor to the ruling party would have ended with one.