If a scientist uses the word, it probably means what Benthere and Bob say it means. But beware if you hear it from the lips of a politician! It will usually mean a re-statement of the question in terms of his own prejudices. Many years ago, I watched a seriously turgid interview of Arthur Scargill, in the course of which he framed his concept of the ideal social order. OK. But his next sentence began, 'It follows from my analysis ...'

He had not, of course, presented an analysis - only a wish-list. But he was incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Well, it's a start. But will you follow him? Is there an ocean so deep, a mountain so high it can keep you away?

On the other hand, if he likes you, and you are at least moderately attractive, just gaze into his eyes and say, 'Would you like to come home with me?' In theory, 'Would you like to take me home?' should work equally well, but in practice, the former is the preferred formula.

It sounds like either an adolescent crush, or unrequited love. An adolescent will not be able to tell teh difference, which takes experience.

Dear indeed, and the cost is boomeranging. Here in the UK, Tony Blair proclaimed that the proportion of university graduates should reach 50% of the population. As there will certainly be a number of bright people who just aren't interested, it follows that some graduates will be people of less (maybe only slightly less) than average intelligence. To cater for them (and the lazy) large numbers of 'new' universities were set up (mainly by re-naming poytechnics and Colleges of Art and Technology), offering honours degrees in subjects of dubious quality. So, you did your gap year, and embarked on a three-year course in (say) 'History and Psychology of Dance' (with special  reference to the tensions existing between performers of ballet, belly and  strip).

By now aged 22 at least, you get your 2:1, and look for work. Gordon Brown to the rescue! He has encouraged every state employer in the country to invent non-jobs for graduates. The character and quality of the degree is less important than how well you fit in with the prevailing ethos. Unfortunately, as you aren't doing anythng that anyone could reasonably be expected to pay you to do, or producing anything at all - indeed, you're consuming rather a lot of resources - your salary and other costs can only come from general taxation, and borrowing.

Hence the current and expected redundancies in the Public Sector. It was hoped and intended by the Coalition that the Private (aka Productive) Sector would hoover up a lot of them, but it hasn't worked out that way. Suppose you are a Private Sector employer with just one vacancy to fill. It's a real job, maybe dead-end, maybe with prospects, but either way, it pays minimum wage, or very little more. You have three candidates.

One is a Pole. He/she has sundry Polish qualifications, which are neither here nor there; but you note that the Pole is proficient in written and spoken English, which you know is not an easy language for a foreigner to learn.

One is a school-leaver aged 16. He/she give the impression of being bright and biddable, though as a product of the UK state educational system, astoundingly ignorant of almost everything under the sun. Being so young, this one can be taken on at a lower rate than either the Pole or the third candidate.

This one is an ex local government employee, with a degree in Transport and Media Studies, with particular reference to the selection of in-flight movies on long-haul routes between English-speaking countries. He/she has been accustomed to 'earning' £40k+ writing reports on and analyses of large sheafs of documents of interest to nobody. Feeling aggrieved at having to accept such a low-paid job, he/she is prepared to put a brave face on it - subject. of course, to immediate access to your company's fast-track promotion system.

Now, which do you choose?

Take a plane to Botswana. Take a taxi to the Kalahari. Once you've seen enough of it, go back to your hotel.

Take a plane to Botswana. Take a taxi to the Kalahari. Once you've seen enough of it, go back to your hotel.

per aerum. Or if you want to be flash, per aetherum.

There are lies, damn' lies and statistics. But on the highest plane of mendacity, you will find seasonally adjusted government statistics. It takes a statistician of high status to sort that lot out. Incidentally, the late Harold Wilson, one of the UK's more disastrous prime ministers, was a great proponent of these, and many were published during his premiership. And he was a past president of the Statistical Society.

Boring question. We have far too much of this sort of thing. The questions arising from the boundaries of omnipotence, omniscience and free will are actually rather interesting, and can lead to some uncomfortable conclusions - not least, that some souls are created already damned, since God knows perfectly how they will exercise their free will; that, plus their entire unwillingness to repent or seek forgiveness (which he also perfectly foresees), will fit them only for Eternal Damnation! - with diamonds, crossed-swords and oakleaves, for the most conspicuous offenders, in whose number I would hope to be included. After all, is not fornication a deadly sin? I would take great umbrage at being left out!.

Incidentally, Ursula LeGuin somewhere classes 'pique, umbrage and ennui' as the three French diseases of the soul. My own view is that there' a fourth, known as chagrin.

You'd never have known about this 'relationship' whatever it was - and I can't see a 'kiss on the cheek' lasting a whole summer any more than you can - had she not told you about it. She therefore wanted you to know. A likely (though not certain) presumption is that she wanted to gauge your character thereby. It sounds as if you have been tested and found wanting. However, you are under no obligation to accept her standards. Apply your own - if you have any.