I would be much happier if you were to ask me something that you consider soul-expanding. I'm not entirely sure what a soul is, and don't know precisely what feeds it.

I guess my only resource is a strong belief in a form of "love" that puts other people ahead of ones' self. I'm not sure which question would fit that context well, if I'm honest.

I'm happy to answer questions and learn from the way it forces me to think though. It seems sad that I haven't been on this formspring service in quite a while, and I'm sorry to have missed the question.

Best wishes.

Hi,

Sorry, I have no idea why this question is being asked. I work on the web, and write for the online community. It's not a very common name, to be honest, and the web search results reflect online activity. Since I have an uncommon name, and work online—especially as a writer and generator of content—it makes sense that I turn up on search engines.

I think I would be far more happy to turn up on searches for other topics than a name, to be honest. I was pretty excited to end up in the results for something else I was looking for entirely. That was fun.

Hi,

No, I was not wearing a helmet, and I would strongly recommend wearing one. This was the first time I didn't wear protective head gear, and thanks to cracking my skull, I cannot remember why. I assume it was a simple slip of the mind—I always wear a helmet.

I was excited about the arrival of my new bike. It'd taken me months to choose which make and model of bike I wanted, and ended up investing in something I'm happy with. When it arrived, fully assembled and ready to ride in a huge brown box, I left it three days, while I found a helmet. It was torture, but I had to wait till I went into work and find one before I let myself ride the new wheels. So I have no idea why I decided to head out without wearing it.

Also, given the skull-bashing, I think a helmut would have meant I would remember what happened, and would have been able to walk to my front door, and ask my wife to drive me to hospital, and get my shoulder looked at. It seems very unlikely I'd have damaged my head, lost memory, and been off work for 5 weeks if I'd worn a helmet. I would probably have broken my collar bone, but would have recovered quicker and been able to tell the story from memory, instead of patching it together from the state of my bike, the splattering of impressive amounts of blood on my road, and the rather unpleasant half-paralysed face to work out what happened.

I'll gladly send you a helmet from Amazon if that'd convince you to wear one.

Hard one to choose, but I'm very fond of pu erh tea from jing tea 1999. They have a nice oolong too which is rather moreish!

I think possibly something that's been doing a great job for a long time, but that might do thing differently if thought up today...

I'd be interested to see how flickr would be designed if it started today, for example. (Though, I must say that flickr is my favourite web app of all time).

It would also be interesting for a new take on online payments, whether this be PayPal or online banking: some completely new thoughts on ways to process payments in a secure, well-ordered way that doesn't look terrible, feel tedious, or take forever.

It would have to be the Fat Duck in Oxfordshire. I'm sure that's about as cliché'd an answer as you can get with these, but I'm curious about it—and that's too much of a draw for me.

Gladiator. Definitely.

It might sound slightly trite, but I do, for a living, a large part of what I'd want to be doing anyway. Now, I can't say that everything I do for work is exactly what I'd choose to do—I must do what's ultimately best for my employers or it wouldn't be fair on them and my colleagues.

I think if I had no compromises of my time to make (and, let's just imagine that for a moment: even without earning a living, compromises of time must certainly be part of the human condition) I'd be a scholar. I'd read and delve into everything and anything I could think to learn about.

I'm particularly drawn to the context of ideas: why do we think and behave in the way we do. Have we got a lineage of thought?

Anglo-Saxon and medieval English history are certainly areas I'd want to spend a lot of time learning more about. I see these as being some of the most important periods for Western thought with the emergence of our ways of life seeded at this time (though, wherever it goes further back, I'd be excited to follow too!)

How about you? What would you do with no job-duty on your time?

It depends on the decision, surely.

Anyone making decisions needs to take into account everything they can. Can you not think of a single decision in which thousands of years of human knowledge can help inform?

I don't think people with faith are diametrically opposed to scientific "consensus". Also, which consensus? You also can't tell me that scientists all agree about everything, can you?

I don't believe that a person making important decisions should do so without thinking for herself. Important decisions shouldn't be based on "the teachings of a religious institution" (unless, of course, the religious institution is elected as a political party, right?).

I believe that tradition, faith and personal conviction can inform and assist in decisions. And I believe "science" which is after all a process (scientific method) and a collection of amassed human knowledge, is simply the grist for the decision mill.

I would not defend the teachings of a religious institution over scientific finding, but I don't think that the default is a diametric opposition.

Also, the tone of this line of questions feels like a sort of assumed evil in every religious person; as if every single individual with religious beliefs is opposed to science, and incapable of making decisions. It feels elitist, and that is; in my opinion, the opposite of scientific reason—which should be indifferent, objective, and... reasonable.

/me sighs.

No, nothing in my previous answer aligned my own perspective with the perspectives of any particular religion. I even said there were situations where the professions of a particular group (I even implied catholics with reference to celibate priests) would or could be suspect.

It's a hell of a logical jump from: "Can/should someone set aside their religion to be a politician?" (my inferred thesis from the previous question) to: "So, you'd be happy with a theocratic dictator ruining our sex lives?" (That's my hyperbolic inference.)

No, I would not be happy for someone in a position of authority to make decisions about community health not based on evidence. I think health is one of the clearest areas for this to be applied. I expect people to think for themselves, and I'm troubled by "religiosity" myself. (see my previous answers here for a fuller context)

I have a problem with people who profess sense over bullshit going all senseless when it comes to someone having spiritual aspect to their lives.

I don't think people can easily set aside their convictions when making decisions. Should they?

Not any more than anyone else can put aside their own experience, philosophy, intuition, insight and individual knowledge or understanding when making decisions.

Surely, when you make a particular decision you bring to bear a vast collection of understanding. Not all of this is "evidence-based" in the strict terms I believe you're probably referring to. The same is true for a religious person and a non-religious person, because both have brains that work like people's brains should, right? Unless you're suggesting that the religious are somehow less than human?

And, why would they or anyone else want to? Is it always bad for a person to base a decision on their own experience with morals, teachings, understandings and even faith? I'm personally delighted when someone I distrust makes a decision based on something bigger than himself. It, at the very least, shows an ability to consider multiple perspectives.

It seems more or less bigoted to suggest that a minority of people in the world have a monopoly on sense because they have chosen—based on their own experiences, morals, understandings, intuitions and the rest—to reject religious teaching.

I agree—I think—that there are times when the idea of having a decision made by someone whose understanding of a situation may be compromised by their idiosyncratic state. I'd find sexual tips and marriage advice from a celibate priest harder to trust than from a friend celebrating his 25th anniversary, for example. But, political decisions are, by definition, decisions involving many people, and a minister for homes and families (or whatever they'd fall under) who happens to be a celibate priest might not be a bad thing. Political decisions would demand skills like being able to see the fullest picture possible, to balance the needs of an important minority with the majority, and the ability to think clearly and take advice.

Then we come to "evidence". Do you always base every decision on "evidence"? Do you double-blind, placebo-control, clinically trial every decision you make?

"Blimey, I need to choose one toothpaste over another, Fred. You squirt a bit of each on these sixty identical toothbrushes, and we'll find randomly-selected volunteers to brush their teeth with one or the other, and one group using a toothbrush full of jam, and follow their progress for a year…"

Of course not. You bring a shared, social and cultural understanding to every decision. Part of this will include an individual's convictions, faith, teachings and understandings. Can you set them aside?

Can you set aside your nationality, gender, culture, intuition or "gut feeling" when making any decision at all?

Also, how do you make a decision on a topic where "evidence" is contradictory, difficult to interpret, or simply lacking?

I'm a huge fan of the whole notion of "evidence-based " policy and medicine. I think a minister for health who believes vehemently in homeopathy or spirit-healing would be unlikely to receive my vote. But I think we're in danger of over-stretching the meme of "evidence-based" as an adjective. It's a cultural token amongst the moderately-well educated to indicate a trust in scientific method over tradition, marketing or simple bullshit. But that's what it should be. It shouldn't be stretched to include a life-style, a culture, or a token for an atheistic life.

I believe in evidence in every area of life where it's possible to apply it. It's important to make informed decisions. But I also believe that there are areas of life where "evidence" is lacking, difficult to interpret, or simply inapplicable. There is no evidence-based conclusion to why I should prefer a certain song to another, to why I may be drawn to a particular form of beauty which may bore or disgust you, to why I find solace in sunsets and fear sleeping.

Don't over-stretch the idea of "evidence". It'll lose its meaning, and eventually, it's significance.

I'm not sure accomplishment was part of the decision to travel. Surely, as a head of state and a historical personage, it's kind of part of the package to tour.

His sentiments, however, don't seem to have been particularly well thought-out for a British audience, do they? In a society confused about its spirituality, where all but one panelist on a recent "Question Time" were atheists, where one of the best newspapers is self-consciously nervous about reporting on faith and where the leader of one of the coalition parties is a professed atheist; I don't think even hinting at a relationship between secularism and naziism was well thought out. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515)

I feel saying it wasn't well thought out is probably being overly charitable, given the audience, content of his talk, and outright misguidance on historical fact. The Nazis, as far as I am aware, were an anti-atheistic political movement; they equated atheism with communism and the evils of the Bolsheviks.

So, I think he thought he's stir some Catholic spirits and have a bit of a pop at secular society.

I think he confused members of his denomination and infuriated secularists. From my perspective as neither, I'm not sure what he accomplished. The figurehead of a group of people whose nominal definition (i.e. catholic as "universal" church) excludes me was always going to say mostly contrary things to my standpoint anyway.

It's fairly straightforward: I write about the tech world, and am drawn to semantics. I was drawn to Talis after writing a piece about them for RWW, and they seemed happy with my work as a non-technical writer.

No.

I'm not qualified to argue for atheism, because I'm a theist.

I'm also not a fan of haiku.

Sorry.

It's a hard one, because I like so many things. It'd be easy, unless we're talking only alcoholic and I can grow some coffee on the island myself (which I am, cause it's my question now ;) ).

I love bitter, or other British names for non-fizzy, not-frozen beer. But I also like continental lager (provided it was brewed at a monastery or abbey).

I love red wine. I like Pino Noir, claret and cab-sauv mostly, but also Pinotage and anything I haven't yet tried but really want to.

But, I love complexity and subtlety of flavour. I love taking the time to taste everything there is in a drink (or food). So, It'd have to be single malt whisky: especially if it's from Islay.

I'm aware that this sounds poncy, but I really do like flavours, and I love scotch!

I'm not sure how to answer this, because I can't work out whether it was asked facetiously.

It doesn't take a huge grasp of metaphor to answer it oneself. If I'm missing something, please clarify, and I'll answer that.

No.
Too small.
Too many.
Too wrong.
Too, er... how to put this... "the wrong shape for the wearer in many/most cases"

Er... Possibly not. Over the last 12 hrs or so, I've been Bernard, Matt, Sebastian and for a while even Elizabeth... At the conference I'm at, we've randomly swapped nametags in the name of social experimentation. I think the beer may have helped.

No, I don't think so.

My definition of religion may be different from yours, however.

Do I think the church has been a force for good in the arbitrarily set period of half a millenium? I think my answer has to be the almost-trite: sometimes.

Oh yes, it makes great coffee. I don't know about any hype, though. I found out about it through Has Bean Steve (@hasbean) who talked about it at one of the Has Bean coffee days I went to.

It's a very simple brewer, and it allows for a very natural extraction. It also filtres the coffee well, so it's got a nice body without any sediment. It's also a relatively inexpensive way to brew coffee. The kit is cheap, the filtres are very cheap, but you do tend to use a lot of beans.

As for tips, I'd say don't grind it too finely. It says it can take any level of fineness, but I've found it difficult to press down if it's espresso-ground. So, try it with a grind similar to a fine basket-brew setting.

Press very slowly. If you push down hard, all the grounds compact instantly, and you'll end up standing on it to get the coffee through.