I'm not sure if it's been noticed before, but, on occasion, the Internet is not the best place to go for measured debate. Arguments on message boards, across social networking sites and in comment threads often have an edge to them which you see less routinely in real life, almost as if people are emboldened by the anonymity provided.

To give a comparison, this post so far is the second most understated thing ever written on the Internet. The most understated thing ever written on the Internet was a email by Mr Arnold Timms of Rochdale, who, having been on the Internet for a day, observed that people seemed to waste a significant amount of their time watching and reading things that made them very angry. (The third most understated thing ever written on the Internet was: 'I will hide in your house and cut you with a blade whilst you sleep you faggot'. This was also Mr Timms, midway through day eight.)

Some people may appreciate the directness, of course. "It's pithy", they might say. And it is. It can be also be venemouth, inthidious and, if you know where to look, a bit rathist.

One of my favourite things to do on the Internet is read the Twitter feed of Joe Cienkowski. Joe describes himself as a Christian author who lives his life for Jesus, so it all checks out up to this point. However, from casual observation, this often takes the form of berating people who don't believe that creationism is the only truth supported by science and that the Bible is the exact history of humanity, for hours at a time. I just can't imagine that Jesus would be looking down, thinking to himself, "OK, FINALLY. All the hungry are fed and the homeless are sheltered and sick are being cared for. Now, has anyone thought to berate the unbelievers?".

Today, I was reading the comments left on a Facebook wall post by Nick Clegg, who, similarly, is the deputy prime minister. If you have ever done this, you'll notice that people get a bit abusive. People repeatedly say 'broken promises' to him, regardless of the topic. Maybe this is like someone shouts a band's biggest hit song title at a band whilst watching them play something else. I worried that eventually he'll get fed up of hearing it and not play it at all. I mean, I've got a recorded version, but it's better live, isn't it?

Anyway, one comment I read particularly stood out. It said: "Nick, you're talking out of your backside, you've got your head up your ass". (Obviously, it didn't use punctuation nearly as well, and it used the word 'arse'. I always wondered why people do this. Is there someone I can arsk?). Now, this has two interpretations. The first is that Nick Clegg does in fact talk using his backside, and that he has, rather foolishly, also got his head up their as well, essentially muffling himself. I can't imagine that anyone with even basic public speaking training would allow themselves to make such a fundamental error.

The second option, which seems more likely to me, is that Nick Clegg actually speaks with his mouth. His mouth is in his head, which is currently up his own ass, giving the impression that he is, in fact, talking out of his ass. But he's not! He's talking out of his mouth, from some point near his ass. An understandable mistake, but not a fair criticism. It would be like having a go at someone for being both blind and a reckless driver.

(And then at this point I probably say something smart like 'please leave a comment and tell me what you think'.)

I find myself asking the question: "what is work?" I have narrowed it down to two definitions:

1. Raising ten kids in one house on benefits.

2. Writing an article for a tabloid newspaper about how the parents raising ten children in one house on benefits "have never worked a day in their lives".

I listen to Radio 5 on my way to and from work, which means I get Nicky Campbell's call-in in the morning. Normally, of course, the opinions of people (all people) annoy me, but I remind myself that we live in a pluracracy and it's good to hear debate about important issues and most importantly, by the time I get to work, I've written a blog-post-rant in my head and I'm just sorting out the formatting and capitalisation of important words. Then, I sit down at my desk and remember that I have Paid Employment, so it will have to wait.

Not going to happen this morning, however. I don't know why the issue of choosing a baby's sex is getting some attention this particular week, but it is and that was the topic of the call-in. The point I entered the discussion was with a woman, who had lost a daughter (possibly miscarried) and wanted to have one through a gender selection procedure, and two men, who clearly felt she (and everyone else) shouldn't have that option.

Mentioning the caller's respective genders was intentional, and is probably the reason why I got angry enough to ignore Paid Employment for a few minutes more. The tone of the exchanges sounded (once refined through my brainfilter) very much like: "Okay, WOMEN, we MEN can no longer dictate to you whether you have a child or not. You have taken that power away from us. As a result, we are looking for new and increasingly petty ways to tell you how you may and may not use your body, specifically in the womenparts region."

Nicky Campbell did a decent job directing the debate, particularly when he drew the discussion to a close when it became a lot more aggressive. One caller actually suggested, behind a wall of faux disclaimers, that it was "sick" to attempt to use science in this way to deal with the loss as a kind of therapy. Others made the point that it was just a natural thing, that people didn't always get what they want, that having children was reward in itself, regardless of their sex, and that not all children develop into the gender stereotypes that anyone who wanted one or the other might expect (if you want a boy for the typical reasons, he might not be interested in playing football).

All of which may be fine for the people making those points (some of whom were female). However, it doesn't mean that the lady calling in, or anyone else who felt in a similar position, should be expect to similarly console themselves with it. Gender selection seems to me like a victimless scientific advance. In that I can't think of someone that gets hurt by it. It uses science. And it's an advance (also: a stepforward; an improvement and a conquering of obstacles). As a result, it should be a choice. If you're not fussed either way, or not comfortable with the idea, no-one will force you pick an X or a Y chromosone from a catalogue. If you are, well, now you can.

Final point. One of the later callers (try to guess what parallel he made by the end of this paragraph), who couldn't be cut off soon enough, made me conclude this: Godwin's law and its resulting rules needs to apply to non-Internet discussion as well.

And penalties for violating it should be harsh, just like the Nazis were.

I argued before that people needed to give Nick Clegg credit, rather than criticism, for trying to make a deal with the Conservatives. I believe that an agreement on a programme of government between them and the Liberal Democrats would best represent the country, and that the same people who argue for proportional representation needed to to acknowledge that it works both ways.

However, if an agreement can not be reached, then this ceases to be the case. Two parties that can't agree to a great deal and can't move on their own aims and those of the voters who supported them does not best represent the people. In such a case, an alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrats would be more representative of the country than a Conservative minority government.

Obviously, that isn't the only consideration, and the numerous media narratives that are currently going on show that their probably isn't one completely correct, iron-clad viewpoint. On one hand, many commentators have labelled the potential Lib-Lab government a 'coalition of the losers', whilst on the other hand, other have pointed out that the Conservatives are also not winners either. In fact, if you consider where the country was last year, when Labour managed 16% of the European election vote, you would have to summise that the Conservatives have taken quite a beating from the electorate too, whilst Labour did much better than expected. It's a confusing time.

Mainly, I think this is because the country at large is dealing with a new perspective on elections as the two-party system has fallen apart. A majority of people in this country voted for one of the two main left-of-centre parties. If they are the "losers", then we are essentially saying that the 36% who voted for the Conservatives are the winners, which is an odd mathematics at best.

I will say this though, as a trained economist. Screw the markets. I'm so sick of hearing about the "market's reaction to the uncertainty of a hung parliament". Firstly, it says a lot for our priorities when short-term market fluctuations could an important driver on much longer-term decisions. That's pretty much how the financial crisis started in the first place, and it's a psychology we need to lose. Secondly, the markets went down on Friday (uncertain government, failing Greece) and up yesterday (uncertain government, bailed-out Greece). One idea that presents itself to me is this: MAYBE IT'S FUCKING GREECE, YOU FUCKWITS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8515592.stm

This is not going to be a long or nuanced post. Some things are just absolute truths:

There are no circumstances in which a rape victim should take responsibility for the attack.

I'm supporting the Rage Against The Machine for Christmas Number 1 campaign, not because I think it sends a powerful message (it does not) or because I care about who tops the Christmas chart (I do not), but in the name of SHENANIGANS. I am pro-frippery. And also vastly amused that Cowell would call this bit of fun 'cynical', given how he makes a living.

Buy the track or don't buy the track. But do make a donation to Shelter, who do amazing work for a group of people it would be easier to forget about: "You'll never silence the voice of the voiceless".

UPDATE: Cowell again bemoaned the campaign earlier, calling its organisers "miserable". He also said it's denying Joe "his moment". Firstly, he's had plenty of moments, including the one where he won the talent contest that he entered and got a million pound recording contract. Secondly, there's the implication of entitlement. The fact that Cowell sees the Christmas number one spot as something that should be granted to everyone who wins his show is just another reason to get on board.

Oh, come on, the BBC. Why would you do this? Tomorrow: What do you think about homosexuality? Saturday: What should be the punishment for convicted paedophiles? Sunday: Do you like the Peter Mandelson? Monday: Whose better: Allah or God? Tuesday...

There really isn't any need.

Dear viewers of the X-Factor,

Many of you apparently came to a realisation only last night, after Simon Cowell elected not to eliminate the double act of John and Edward from the competition after weeks of deriding their performances and stating publically that their victory in this competition would destoy the programme and would encourage him to leave the country. You have apparently developed a sense of cynicism for the first time (a cynicism oddly absent in the way you have previously embraced this popularity competition mascarading as a talent contest) that Cowell only did this because he calculated he can make more money from the circus that surrounds those two boys than Lucie Jones. Indeed, it could be argued that by taking such a public stance against the two, he has himself increased their value as a commodity.

I am inclined to agree with this assessment. Please, however, do not confuse this with sympathy for your outrage.

Most of you will continue to watch this meaningless exercise. You like to claim that the programme discovers the some of the most exceptional singers in the country. That it does that on a yearly basis makes me inclined to think that there is a plentiful supply of such individuals who can be easily slotted into the producers desired show format. Most can hold a tune, but I've yet to see why we need one more of them, and why we need to spend so much time finding such a minor contribution to popular music. Once again, we as a nation and a culture have confused being good at something with being exceptional. This is how mediocrity wins.

Here's what you should do. If you care about music so much, leave the house and go and support real musicians. Go to local gigs. Buy their CDs. Tell your friends. That all this time and energy spent on one sideshow act in the name of finding the country's next top musician is troubling at best (and downright perverted at worst). We live in an age of vast informational resources. We could each discover ten great acts in one-twentieth of the time it takes for this show to runs its course. So, stop moaning, and consider doing that instead.

Of course, if you don't care about music, may I recommend you watch the X-Factor. It is the programme for you.

Yours sincerely,

Craig

I've been enjoying Derren Brown's latest series. What I've enjoyed most is watching public reaction - and I'm convinced Derren is enjoying it as well.

After the lottery trick, the amount of time spent proving it was a trick was completely unprecedented. I can only assume that people feel the need to try to prove a magician is actually a magician, and not a wizard, because he's been so successful in the past at baffling people. His act often dresses up magic in the guise of being something deeper. He may certainly be better at controlling minds than other magicians (the Heist stunt, for instance, is no illusion) but he is still, at the end of the day, a magic act that use a wide variety of methods.

The anger at his explanation - I've seen people say they've written to advertising watchdogs because of false claims - was particularly amusing, especially if you really watch the show. The punchline of the show - after giving his obviously false mathematical explanation, and his even more absurd 'fix the draw' explanation that was designed to taunt the real cynics - was simply "I'll maintain that it was just a trick", a throwaway reminder that the idea is could be anything else is just ridiculous.

If anything, the reaction to the control the nation event was even better. Commenting on the Guardian's live coverage of the show, many people seemed keen to point out, in a tone that suggested they were in some way superior, that it had not worked for them. Quite frankly, anyone who tried it with that attitude was never going to experience anything else. It should be noted that there was a punchline at the end of this show as well - this time mentioning that all the tricks has nothing to do with subliminal messaging. Cath chatted the entire way through it, but I've got it on my DVR, so I'll give it another go later, and let you know how it goes. I deeply want it to work. I think that would be more interesting than standing up.

Booom.

Barney Frank murked that shit.

Update: Colbert adds joy to already joyous event.

On The West Wing, they would occassionaly do an episode where a conventional bit of liberal thinking was taken apart. In one episode, a gay Republican congressman argues with Josh over the Defence of Marriage Act, and Josh finally says "how can you be a member of this party". The answer given is that although gay, there was a lot more to the congressman's politics and beliefs than just his sexuality.

For most people, we rarely agree with everything the party we vote for has in its manifesto. You try and find the best fit. I tend to vote Liberal Democrat, but I was uneasy in 2005 with their stance on top-up fees, for example. This is unremarkable. However, for some people, there's a tendency for the rest of us to believe they can only care about one issue, and the LGBT community is one of them. It seemed incredible to Josh in that episode, and it apparently seems incredible to the government that according to a recent survey, 38% of homosexuals would vote Tory at the next election, even though the Conservative Party have had by far the weaker record on supporting gay rights (as acknowledged even by the respondents in the same survey)

The irony here is that this stance is in itself homophobic, implying that the only thing a homosexual cares about is being homosexual, and that the only thing they seek from a government is that it lets they be as homosexual as they want to be. Far be it for gays to be interested in the same concerns that have driven the nationwide decline in Labour support, or to care about a number of issues. A fiscally conservative gay? An anti-EU gay? How can you be pro-business or in favour of tougher immigration policies AND a homosexual? Where would you even find the time?

I find it hard to work out where the Conservative Party currently stands on gay rights, as I don't think the positions espoused by Cameron are necessarily spreading throughout his party, nor do I think he is definitely not posturing. I see nothing on the policy section of the website about gay rights (while I do see a section on the countryside). But it's one area that voters - all voters - get to decide about, and that includes heterosexuals who are also able to care about fringe issues like equality and personal freedom. Making it a rallying call against the Tories makes you as much of a hinderance to progress as the anti-gay Conservative party (if it even exists) that you want to stop getting into power.

"What do you call a Pakistani cloakroom attendant? Mahatma coat."

So said Sir David Jason on a radio broadcast on Tuesday, sparking no complaints and a media outrage. I would have thought that accusations of racism would require, at the very least, something racist to have been said. Mentioning race is not the same thing. The idea that this portrays Pakistanis as cloakroom assistants, a sentence I struggle to believe I have just typed, is sort of ridiculous. This accusation was made Mr Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, a man who is in a position to help everyone understand better the delicate issues surrounding our multicutural society, should be ashamed for coming out with such mindless nonsense.

Now, if the joke had been, "What do you call a cloakroom attendant? Mahatma coat," then we'd be getting closer (similar alternatives would have included "What do you call a cloakroom attendant? A Pakistani"). I will concede that this joke does portray Pakistanis as being called Mahatma. This is obviously not true, and should be addressed. I know one called Rinchan.

But here is the best bit - "We consider the views of our listeners to be very important and have received no complaints about these comments. Christian O'Connell will issue an on-air apology in tomorrow's breakfast show." So important are the views of these listeners to Absolute Radio, that they have decided to ignore the sentiments they have conveyed, and do exactly what they want anyway. When dealing with something as complicated and nuanced as race relations, I find its always better to respond with crude, blunt jabs of blanket denial and patronising posturing. Everyone out of the pool, please - last one in is a racist.

Now, of course, I deeply want to see this play. I am often quite cynical of the "offensive comedy is satire" defence, because it's used so often, for things with no satirical target or purpose other than to shock. However, when done well (Chris Morris, Bill Hicks) it is also the most rewarding form of comedy - the ability to entertain while at the same time provoking actual thoughts about the attitudes you have and the undiscovered hypocrisies you carry around is an impressive skill.

But I'm inclined to give this play the benefit of the doubt, if only because this part of the linked news piece annoyed me:

"The play has received a mixed response from critics.

The Sunday Times found it "a seriously hilarious play", "provocative, swaggering, humane and edgy".

Shadow Children's Secretary Michael Gove said he was surprised the "dramatically appalling" work could be staged in the National Theatre.

"I thought that the humour was vulgar, raucous, obvious. It made Alf Garnett seem sophisticated," he told BBC Two's Newsnight Review."

Firstly, the positive opinion was from a critic. The negative opinion was from a politician. A politician has politicised public opinions. The reason for that is that the headline 'Top Tory supports racist play" carries more weight than whatever well thought out argument that led to it. Quite why we expect our politicians to have opinions on culture issues and celebrity news is beyond me. Maybe we don't. Maybe it's a media construction. But Gordon Brown volunteered his thoughts on Jade Goody's cancer. Why? Who knows. As prime minister, he should have no opinion on any one cancer patient. As a human being he should and likely does, but he only has a voice as a public figure, so it's entirely irrelevant what he thinks.

Secondly, Alf Garnett WAS sophisticated, and the fact that people continue to miss that fact is a constant source of upset. I had a conversation with my Dad recently about 1970s TV, and he said that there's no way Alf Garnett would be allowed on TV today. But of course it could, because it was sending up bigotry, rather than expressing bigoted views in a heartfelt way. Do try to pay attention.

The Daily Mail this morning is filled with hysterics about many savings accounts now facing zero interest rates, accusing the government of targetting help for borrowers (the reckless young people who created this whole mess in the first place because they don't care about morals or the family or the rule of law) by penalising the savers (the sensible old people who fought and died for this country, and had to scrape together everything they own with their own frail fingers).

Firstly, there are always winners and losers. If there were anyway of helping people without hurting others then it would already have been done. In times of crisis, those in control have to make an assessment of who needs help, and where is best to transfer that help from (whether its greater benefits paid for taxes, or great regulation which incurs costs to firms or whatever). The role of monetary policy (basically setting short-term interest rates) is to alter behaviour to control shocks to demand in the hope of maintaining steady (or equilibrium) levels of inflation and employment.

If demand-side inflationary pressures become strong, then interest rates will increase. This affects demand - people find it more costly to borrow, have less disposable income after mortgage payments have been removed, and find saving more beneficial. All of these things reduce the amount of money there is being spent, which eases inflationary pressures.

Currently, in the midst of the a downturn, where demand is falling, lower interest rates work along these same channels to achieve to opposite effects - more disposable income, easier borrowing, less incentive to save. While it is still effective (and with base nominal rates getting close to zero, it is reaching that limit) it is generally considered to most effect way of managing macroeconomic shocks.

The crucial point is that these are all short term changes. Once real variables are stabilised, interest rates will rise again. The issue that is getting confused here is that general idea that it is a good idea for people to save for retirement. It is, and and is also something that should be encouraged more as a long term goal. However, a government operates at the macro level, and while many individuals may suddenly find that their savings haven't grown as much as they expect this year and next year, they will also find (if they looked) that the recession that we are in, which will affect everyone, isn't as deep as it would be if governments (or central banks) had taken no action at all. Plus, savers have benefitted from higher interest rates during the last ten years when the economy has been doing well, which has come at the expense of borrowing and mortgage payers.

Plus, borrowers and savers aren't two different breeds of human. People borrow and people save over the course of their lifetime. In fact, many people do both at the same time, let alone during the lifecycle. Few people are Polonius. There will be times when interest rates benefit you and times when they don't. Overall, you probably do OK, given the long term nature of major borrowing and saving, and the short term volatility of interest rates.

So please, stop twisting sensible policy choices into a story about the government's attacks on the old and weak. Instead, go report on something you are well informed on, like the snow or some celebrity's battle with cancer.

So here's quite a thing. Let us talk about it for a few minutes, shall we?

Apparently, the Oxford Imps have not impressed Sian Cox-Brooker, as well as the nameless many who would doubt our reputation as the most talented bunch of frustrated thesps. That is, of course, fine - the sold out show we performed last week (and all other weeks) leads me to believe someone is enjoying what we do. However, I can only assume that while I saw them laugh frequently, they failed to laugh largely, thus allowing the laughs to be smaller than our swollen egos.

But I do need to be clear about something. Do people doubt we are frustrated thesps, or do people doubt we actually have any talent? Because I do doubt the former myself - most of the group aren't interested in performing drama outside of our comedy show (which has always left me feeling the exact opposite of frustrated) while the few that do are incredibly successful within the Oxford scene.

So it must be that we aren't all that talented, a flaw we apparently blame on our audiences. I have been an Imp for four years now. We have blamed audiences for giving unimaginative suggestions. We have blamed audiences for encouraging cheap and easy sex gags. We have never blamed an audience for a bad show. We blame ourselves for not being funny. We blame ourselves for being funny but not being good. We even blame ourselves when we are both good and funny, but not as much of either as we hope to be. Anyone who has ever sat through our post-show analysis will quickly realise we are our own harshest critics. Suggesting otherwise is as inaccurate as it is mean-spirited.

Thankfully, of course, the Revue are close by to show us how to do things, in the sense that while they are the same idea as the Imps, they perform an entirely different form of comedy. They write a scripted show once every four months. We make up two hours of comedy every week. So you can see how might lack ambition. If only we could make less comedy with more of a safety net. Of course, they are infinitely times funnier, so that's measurable at least.

Do not mistake this for an attack on the Revue, who I happen to respect and have defended from charges of mediocrity a number of times today alone. I just want to point out where this article may have drifted slightly astray from the small matters of truth and reality. I can't help that the writer may not like the show, and would listen and agree with anyone who wanted to point out which specific bits of comedy failed. But I do expect a little more research and specificity if we are going to be so strongly criticised. She could, for instance, have emailed hannah@oxfordimps.com - if only to check who is now in charge of auditions.

Today, Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, commenting on privacy laws arising from the Max Mosely case, said, "it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand".

Of course, this only applies to situations where a recognisable personality is involved in unusual yet private sex acts, and not in anyway to accurate reporting about the effects of Polish people living in Britain.

I think this is an incredible story, and so far, at least 50% of people who I have talked to (talked at) about it have agreed with me.

These export taxes are cretinous. The Argentine government seem to believe that by taxing farmers' exports, who are currently benefiting from high world food prices, they can fund welfare programmes for Argentina's poor. But that's far too simple. Dividing the pie is only half the story when it's coming at the cost of the total size of the pie, and free trade leads to the biggest pie. Faced with export tariffs, farmers will produce less. What's more, resources will shift to goods which Argentina has less comparative productive advantage in, meaning they produce less and sell less.

I entirely agree with wanting to redistribute wealth - at this point of writing on this blog, I don't think I need say that. But there are less distortive, counter-productive, hell, dumb ways of doing it.

But all that aside, the drama and politics of the whole thing is what really gets me. A split decision in the Senate, a deciding vote by the Vice-President against his boss, complete with the most DUN-DUN-DUUUN of all of speeches ("May history judge me, my vote is not for, it's against" - come on!), and scenes of Argentine farmers celebrating around TV screens like they just won the World Cup (or something important).

Can you imagine that happening in Britain? Or anywhere not in South America?

The Obama cartoon on the front of this week's edition of the New Yorker appears to have got a number of people angry, though in all fairness, this anger has mainly been restricted so far to just the left and the right. That leaves, well, the staff of the New Yorker in the Not Angry column.

Which is silly really, because the people that should be angry are the staff of the New Yorker, for having everyone distort a perfectly good piece of political satire into a bit of propaganda that either a.) plays on peoples fears that Obama is a Secret Muslim, or, b.) plays on peoples fears that all Republicans are Secret Racists.

This is unlikely to escalate, thankfully, like the reaction to the Muhammed cartoon a couple of years ago. There, Muslims took to the streets to burn Danish flags. Democrats on the streets burning American flags may not quite send the right message.

What's most frustrating about this is that it is exactly the sort of non-news distraction that Obama has been railing against for months. Steven Colbert has been calling Obama a Secret Muslim for months, and no-one complains. Why does everyone get that joke, but not this one? Maybe the New Yorker is an easy target. The guys at the Daily Show and the Colbert Report would have a field day if they were attacked for a joke.

By the way, I am glad Colbert and Stewart are back.

This is just wrong. Let me explain why.

There used to be quite a big thing in wrestling called kayfabe. Kayfabe is the insider term for all the stuff in wrestling that, while fictional, is played as being real. It's as important on screen as an actor not breaking character during a film. In wrestling, though, continuing the act off-screen, in public, on other shows or just on the street also used to be very important. After all, wrestling is a performed version of a sporting event, and with all sporting events, people like to support certain competitors. Thus, not breaking character off-screen helps the product on-screen.

So Kofi isn't callously denying his heritage to get ahead in his chosen career. It's what he is expected to do. Now, kayfabe isn't the same anymore. In the age of the Internet, fans got "smart" to the business. Old wrestlers wrote books. Show writers ackowledged the existence of kayfabe by writing angles for shows where a character came out and broke kayfabe (for example, by going on a rant about other wrestlers and using insider terms to fans). Top WWE stars do interviews on chatshows with a metaphorical wink to the camera. But even given all that, it still exists. And if Kofi has been given the character of a Jamaican to play (a tool that has often been used in wrestling, where a certain nationality represents a certain attitude), then he shall play it, and if he takes particular pride in his work, then continuing the act outside the ring is not in any way unusual.

Why people still try to write about wrestling as if its another sport, then make jabs about how it isn't really a sport, is beyond me. We all got it a long time ago. Do catch up.

The word "literally" is used in the modern world far too much, and always wrongly. It's normally dropped into a sentence in an attempt to add emphasis to a description. But given that most descriptions are metaphorical in someway, it just becomes nonsense. Witness: "It was so hot, I was literally melting to death".

So much is this the case that I've been having a hard time trying to work out how to use it correctly in a sentence. Ignoring the obvious: "this French word literally means...", I guess there is two ways. Firstly, add it before a non-metaphorical description - "he was literally six foot three" - but that is dull, and pointless. The second way, I think, is to add it before a description that while is commonly understood to be a metaphor, in this instance, it is not: "the frozen lake was literally as cold as ice". There's something quite pleasing about that, but such sentences are likely to be rare.

This is really more of Alex's area. Any thoughts?