Make your mark -- memories are short

Whatever your field of expertise, make your mark, and ensure that you are not overlooked. Too often you are like a stick in a pail of water, standing out while you are there, but once you leave, the ripples quickly subside, leaving no evidence of who you were or what you did. Unless you change the colour of the water.

Ten years ago, some half a dozen speakers, including myself, started the Professional Speakers Association (PSA). I was the Marketing Director for the first four years, promoting membership and building up the organisaton itself. Much of the work I did was behind the scenes, in helping to formulate policies and strategies and ensuring that they were carried out. As any director would.

We were too democratic. Instead of retaining ownership, we decided to let the PSA be owned by its members. Bad mistake.

In recent times I have not been involved with the PSA, except to attend the occasional meeting. About a month ago I received an invitation to join one of the groups (just like the Ecademy clubs), and automatically accepted.

To my amazement, last week I received a message from someone who may be the group's facilitator, saying that he had read my profile but could not find any information about my speaking activities or my connection with the PSA. I replied simply that I was one of the handful of people who founded the PSA.

What would you have done?

Phillip

What's in the food you eat?

Yesterday I saw the film, Food Inc. and if you haven't seen it yet, I urge you to find it. It will change the way you think about the food you eat.

Very simply, it's a fine piece of investigative journalism on the misuse of power by the food industry in the US. Some of those practices almost certainly exist in Britain and the EU. They are doing you harm.

Two things, in particular, bothered me about the film's content. One, it revealed how much danger we are in from the way animals are factory-processed for our consumption. The other was the way that five or six major food corporations dominate the industry, exploiting and intimidating their suppliers (farmers) in a so-called free society.

On the first point, did you know that 'ground beef' (mince) prepared for commercial hamburgers seems to have contained every bit of the animal parts, including those you would throw away yourself? And did you know that cattle raised for beef stand all day in deep piles of their own manure, which is barely washed off when they are slaughtered, so that it affects (and even infects) the meat that goes on sale? And did you know that the millk you drink probably contains the pus from infected teats and traces of cow dung?

The film also told the story of a healthy young boy who ate a hamburger and was dead within 12 days. His mother has been campaigning for something to be done to prevent it happening again. E-coli is being bred into foodstuffs, and the food companies don't seem to care.

You don't want to know about the way chickens are reared. It's all driven by money.

You think it doesn't happen here? Well, I feed my local foxes on well-known brands of dog food which I buy in major supermarkets. Quite often they walk right past the food and refuse to eat it. A friend has a cat that similarly ignores the tinned food she puts out. Why do you suppose that is?

Could it be that the carcasses of diseased farm animals are used for pet food? What else is in the processed food we buy? Start reading labels and see how much 'real' food you are getting, and how much is some form of corn derivative. And start taking notice of the conditions in which farm animals are kept before slaughter. You may never eat meat again.

So what can we do about it? Well, consider what happened to the tobacco industry. Laws were introduced to protect us from the effects of tobacco smoke because of people power. Buy organic food. Raise this as an issue at the General Election. Vote for those who promise to expose bad practices in food preparation.

You have the power. Time to use it.

Phillip

What is happening to Whom in Britain?

I was having dinner in San Diego with a retired English teacher, when he rather cleverly asked me, "What is happening to whom in England?" I knew he meant "What is happening to the use of the word 'whom'?" so I replied that it was hardly used at all, except incorrectly.

Here's an example: I contacted John Smith whom I believe is the man in charge. It's a common error, caused by the parenthetical phrase 'I believe'. Take out that phrase and you'll know it's right to say "who is the man in charge".

We continued talking about common mistakes in English, and exchanged notes on the following:

As a valued customer we can offer you ... Is the valued customer making the offer? Should have been "As you are a valued customer, we can offer you ..." or (better) "Because you are a valued customer ..."

Your alright. Should be You're all right. You're sounds like Your, but here it stands for You are. And 'all right' is the correct form, as two words. 'Alright' is one of those abuses that are gaining acceptance just because so many people use it.

Celebrating it's anniversary. The possessive form is 'its'. 'It's', with the apostrophe, means 'it is.'

Between 12pm and 1pm. There is no such time as 12p.m. Or 12 a.m. either. It is 12 noon or 12 midnight.

This mitigates against them recommending you. Some words are used in error instead of another word that sound similar. Mitigates means 'making less bad', so perhaps the speaker means 'militates', which means 'being a powerful factor in preventing something'.

XYZ ups the anti on driving skills. This is another example of the previous error. It should have been "ups the ante." The word means the bet a player makes when gambling (Latin for 'before').

He span around. The past tense of 'to spin' is 'spun'.

It was given to my friend and I. This is another version of 'between you and I'. Should be 'given to my friend and me'.

These common mistakes in English can result in the user being considered ill-educated, and create an unfavourable impression. Two excellent reference books on this topic are Usage and Abusage by Eric Partridge (Penguin) and The Right Word at the Right Time from Reader's Digest.

Phillip Khan-Panni
www.pkpcommunicators.com

Could this be why Murray lost?

The Times this morning is full of reports and analysis of the Australia Open and Andy Murray's failure to end a 74 drought of Grand Slam victories by a British male. One of the journalists wrote that Murray brought his A game but lost because he did not also bring his A service.

I think he was watching a different match from the one I saw.

In my view, Murray played reactive tennis -- a feature of his natural style. He seemed to be waiting for Federer to make an error, and when Federer played a soft slice, he responded with his own soft slice. Only in the third set, which he needed to win, did he come out and play with the kind of intensity that wins matches. He nearly won that set, and he played some of his best tennis in the tie break, when his motivation was finally at the right level.

So what can we learn from that?

Federer was in charge. He deployed his own resources, he dictated the plays, he made his opponent respond to what he was doing. Murray seldom took the initiative. He has the talent (the means), he has the technique (the method), but he fell short on motivation or mindset.

Means, method, mindset -- the 3Ms that provide the chance of success at the top.