Car too

Coco has a friendly Corsa who is ever the optimist In fact she is in his view overly optimistic even in the face of the facts.

When topped up with a mere 41.32l of petrol she will announce that she has a range of 499 miles. Coco is pretty sure that she announces only 499 miles because that is the upper limit on the metre she uses. But the facts so obviously fly in the face of this optimism. The other day and three miles before being topped up she announced that she had less than 19 miles left, sulked bitterly and refused to do any more calculations. She also knows that she has a range of 39.1 miles for every gallon she holds. Now to his mind that mean that after the top up she would have a range of about 41.32*39.1/4.546 + 16 say 370 miles. Well Coco can only attribute the additional 129 miles to optimism or perhaps merely to hubris.
Such optimism is entirely misplaced, would you not agree?

We can all be like that, and have an optimism which is misplaced. We live in a harsh world, in which the difficulties which are common to us all will not be effaced, and in which there are hardships which are of our own making and others made by other people for us. There is no excuse of course for the making of those hardships, and those who mistreat others, as we are reminded by the recent references to the Nuremberg trials, shall be brought to account.

But lest we sink into pessimism, there is an optimism which we may have which is even greater than my Corsa’s, which if she had anything like it she would use to claim a range, if her metre allowed it, of ∞:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the imagination of the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him.

Do we love the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Do we love him?

Optimism based upon the work of Christ on the cross, unlike that of the friendly Corsa, is never misplaced.


It has been said if a lie is to believed it must be a big one

Now certain reports have suggested to Coco that not many of you are likely to read this post through as it is too long, nevertheless it shall be long. Sometimes a short rebuke is both necessary and effective, but in reasoning and critique a longer reply may be required. Another reason for you not wanting to read it through might be that it is far too convoluted, perhaps, some would say, dense or even turgid, but whatever your reason might be Coco hopes that you will be able to overcome any such propensity and continue to plough a furrow through it such as shall not be erased at least not before the late rains have come.

Paul was not afraid to use words spoken by those with whom he would not be in full agreement when they spoke the truth: so in Athens ‘in him we live and move and have our being’, as well as possibly a more famous extract from a Cretan poet there and elsewhere, are used by him to great effect. In our day however when you quote someone who happens to belong to a proscribed group you risk the most severe of opprobria, not to mention discipline, that our society can, if it believes in discipline, find. Coco says this because Coco intends to quote from one who comes in for even greater censure than the one who said something like: When a great opportunity arises, do not play with trifles.

It was this man, whom Coco shall not name but who will be well known to you, and to whom Coco is very happy to attribute the words Coco shall use should you wish to ask, but will not do so here in order to avoid the risk that this post shall be heard in Moscow or Peking having so been reported by the automated trawlers to those who think they have authority over us and what we post here and yet to the real authorities are unwilling to accept any responsibility for what we post; but that subject is really outside the scope of what Coco wishes to say here, and consequent to their audit result in a potential redaction of this post.

So to move on, it makes good business sense, some would say, that you go where the big money is. So on the eve of battle you might expect to hear: when there is an opportunity to make money out of [repeatedly] providing a vaccine to everyone on the planet, why go after (play) with something that will only benefit one in 1,000, unless the profit out of that trifle is at least 1,000 times greater than the profit to be made out of each dose of the vaccine?

Or perhaps the authorities might say: when there is an otherwise greater and more significant opportunity to exercise control over our people (they do not like to remember that at least in the West it is the other way round, they are our governors) why go after anything less? They see that there are some social benefits, although also significant costs, in social order. They forget though that a former Dutch prime minister who having done the historical analysis over a hundred years ago, concluded that the best solution to social deprivation and vice would be for the government to promote the preaching of the evangelical Christian gospel such was the evidence from the previous two hundred years of the turn around and improvement that there had been where that gospel had touched the hearts and lives of men and women. Coco is again in danger of drifting, rambling some might say, outside the scope of what Coco came here to say.

Now, if you have read Coco carefully you will note that Coco has not actually said or accused anybody of doing something or saying something which they have not said, but let Coco ask a question, based upon a remark of one who was probably knew and was known by the one who said: in the face of a great opportunity do not play with trifles, unlike Drake who when faced with the Armada continued his game of bowls, or Belshazzar who partied into the night when the Medes and Persians were at his gates.

Before Coco does so, just a brief reminder of our mortality. Before the beginning of the 20th Century our mortality rates were around 20 per mille. Coco shall not argue over whether they were as low as 17 or as high as 25. Using a five year average by 1970 they had fallen to around 12 per mille and continued to fall until about six years ago hitting a low just above 8.5 per mille. It is currently at something just under 9.5 per mille. The rates for other countries may differ, and the rates Coco has provided may differ from other sources, but the differences are not so significant as require an explanation here. Coco understands there is some kind of correlation between mortality rates and life expectancy, but it is a complex relationship, in physical terms a three body problem, so Coco must leave that to the experts in that field. Whilst reading into this matter (researching would be too strong a term) Coco was astonished to find that some work had been done on the correlation of wealth production and life expectancy. If they are right perhaps the owners of this forum might be expected to outlive Methuselah. However, causation cannot be proven, for the numbers do not determine the date of Coco’s death, rather it is the deaths of all who have gone before us which determine these numbers. Ours will only affect numbers which we shall never know.

Now in the light of what was truthfully said: if you are going to tell a lie make sure it is a big one, what conclusion might you reach over whether, if they are lies, what Coco has suggested might have been said or whether, if they are lies, what was actually said by the authorities, whether they are governing authorities or scientific authorities, which Coco has not reported here, about the current infection is the bigger lie?

In accordance with good examination practice (should we ever see them again), you are required, please, to set out your reasons in no more than the number of words that Coco has taken to reach the next following full stop.

Finally, one of the sources of the data requires Coco to state:
Office for National Statistics various years, Data obtained through the Human Mortality Database, on 17 November 2020

☺ With apologies in advance for errors of syntax, orthography and grammar which may be found embedded in this document whether arising from oversight, incorrect application of language packs or generally any other misadventure; and in general for any offence given inadvertently or inappropriately or both taken or not taken by those whose sensibilities, whether grammatical, orthographical, moral or simply personable, have been offended whether, not or if you have not incorrectly misunderstood the content, intent, meaning and purpose of this article, and to those whose copyrights may have been inadvertently or wantonly infringed, but never as to cause damage the copy holder’s rights, and, if you have managed to read this far, for any errors or omissions whether wilful, unintended, innocent or deliberate in the content of this polemic, and with thanks to you who have made it thus far for your patience.