Using the causation=correlation rule of the enemy (and remember, they wrote the rules of engagement) we can only conclude that the smokophobe Dr. Ronald Crystal speaks for all Presbyterians everywhere, present, past and future.
Yes, in the real world we know that he is only interested in boosting money for his pretend research but we are not fighting in the real world. We are fighting in the Righteous world by Righteous rules.
Therefore all Presbyterians are the enemy. It's no good commenting 'I am Presbyterian and I am not an antismoker' because Dr. Crystal speaks for all of you. Correlation equals causation. Your rules, Righteous. If you are Presbyterian you are the enemy. No exceptions. No compromise. Dr. Crystal is one of you and you are homogenous. Again, your rules. Deal with it internally, it's not the smokers' problem. It's yours.
If you smoke and are Presbyterian it's time to choose. Stop smoking or find a Christian religion that doesn't regard you as filth. There are a few left. Anglicanism is pretty cool about most things and as a religion, they're pretty laid back. So far. Leave the diktats of Dr. Crystal and embrace a faith that is forgiving and genuine, without the fake science and extensions to the Bible that the Presbyterians sinfully encourage.
Dr. Crystal is extending the remit of the Bible and as any Christian knows, that is downright evil and will condemn him and all who follow him to the lowest depths of Hell. There is absolutely no mention of smoking in the Bible at all. Not a word. Yet Dr. Crystal has brought every Presbyterian into the clutches of Satan with his personal dislike of something that God has never mentioned at all. This is the same God who created tobacco, by the way.
Oh, Presbyterians, your time is up now. You have endorsed and paid for a man who has gone beyond the Bible's remit and you have encouraged his personal rewriting of what is right and what is wrong.
Let's hope you can all sleep at night now - because there's no sleep where you're going.
Hey, it's not all bad news. If you smoke, at least you'll get a light.
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Spooky film night.
I have here a litre of Whyte and MacKay Glasgow Special and a DVD called 'Dead Silence' - a scary filum of the 'ventriloquist dummy' variety. Even adding in the entire cost of a 2 oz pack of baccy (which lasts almost a week) and the entire cost of the whisky (which won't) and the DVD which is now mine until I give it away, the evening will cost me less than £30.
I can pretend I'm at the pictures in the old days, with smoke and booze and film all at the same time.
In fact, if I could get hold of one of those ceiling mounted projector TVs, I could even have smoke in the beams.
All I need now is a wench in a short skirt with a tray of ice creams. And a git rustling a popcorn packet behind me. A few chattering children and an idiot with a red-rimmed torch flashing his way around...
Nah. This is better than the old days. I miss the wench with the tray of ices though.
Back later, hopefully wide-eyed and with hair on end.
I haven't forgotten the Smoke Wars. There are slogans to design for the other parties before the Holyrood elections and there is a certain Rachael Noxious to be dealt with. There is also the backing-down Righteous cameraman to pursue. No mercy, no prisoners, no compromise. Those are the rules of engagement. Their rules. We have to play by their rules, it's only fair.
First though, scary filum time.
UPDATE: Thumbs up for 'Dead Silence'. No happy ending and a policeman who does not believe in ghosties at all. The final twist is a beauty too. Best line is from the policeman - 'Don't make me chase you. I don't have a full tank of gas.'
It didn't scare the pants off me but it was a lot of fun. The scene with the dummy of Obo is excellent too. I hope he was paid for that.
I can pretend I'm at the pictures in the old days, with smoke and booze and film all at the same time.
In fact, if I could get hold of one of those ceiling mounted projector TVs, I could even have smoke in the beams.
All I need now is a wench in a short skirt with a tray of ice creams. And a git rustling a popcorn packet behind me. A few chattering children and an idiot with a red-rimmed torch flashing his way around...
Nah. This is better than the old days. I miss the wench with the tray of ices though.
Back later, hopefully wide-eyed and with hair on end.
I haven't forgotten the Smoke Wars. There are slogans to design for the other parties before the Holyrood elections and there is a certain Rachael Noxious to be dealt with. There is also the backing-down Righteous cameraman to pursue. No mercy, no prisoners, no compromise. Those are the rules of engagement. Their rules. We have to play by their rules, it's only fair.
First though, scary filum time.
UPDATE: Thumbs up for 'Dead Silence'. No happy ending and a policeman who does not believe in ghosties at all. The final twist is a beauty too. Best line is from the policeman - 'Don't make me chase you. I don't have a full tank of gas.'
It didn't scare the pants off me but it was a lot of fun. The scene with the dummy of Obo is excellent too. I hope he was paid for that.
Friday, 20 August 2010
Holyrood campaign on behalf of the SNP.
There has been much ado about the release of someone called Mr. Mudguard from prison. Apparently Mr. Mudguard was convicted of the Lockerbie bombings - I'm not saying he was involved and I'm not saying he was made a scapegoat, I don't know either way. That's now beside the point.
Scottish law allows for 'compassionate release' of prisoners who are likely to die shortly. It saves having to clear up stinky corpses from the cells and stops other prisoners worrying about being haunted by the likes of 'Poker' MacRamrod and 'Crikey, that's a marrow' MacWhopper. Agree with it or otherwise, that's the law.
So when doctors said that Mr. Mudguard only had three months to live, the SNP government ordered his release. They didn't do it to spite Labour, they didn't do it to spite Barry O'Blimey, they did it because well, they didn't really have a choice. It's the law. Doctors said he was about to croak, the law says they have to let him go home.
Now, Scottish Labour (who actually promote nothing of the kind) insist the SNP issue an apology for following the law. Why? Because Mr. Mudguard didn't die as instructed by British doctors but was instead saved, and has maybe a couple more years in him, after seeing some Libyan doctors.
It seems to me that it might be worth talking to those Libyan doctors because they're better at treating terminal cancer cases than ours. They are keeping Mr. Mudguard alive long after ours had given up on him. Nobody has noticed that. They are all far too concerned that someone has lived beyond his legally-allocated time to wonder why that should be.
Al the Oily Fish should not, indeed must not apologise for working within the law. There are damn few instances of that in politics as it is. He should simply point out that MSPs are not in a position to predict the life expectancy of cancer patients and therefore they must rely on the expert testimony of the doctors. If the doctors screw up, they should apologise. Not the government.
Go on, Al. Just once. Let them demand that apology in Holyrood. Let them howl for it with impassioned lies and deep insincerity.
Then stand up, clear your throat and say 'Ach, awa' an' bile yer heid, ya wee bawbag'. Then take a swig of Buckfast and sit down. The reaction would be well worth seeing, don't you think?
And while doing that, you might want to consider how the smoking ban will affect my campaign on your behalf. Oh, I agree you have nothing to apologise for - indeed, in upholding the law to the letter, you have much to take pride in but then I'm a smoker and you have laws about me too. They don't include giving me three months without punishment, not even at the end. I also realise that few people have ever, or will ever hear this argument and even if they do it's not going to cut any ice with them.
This is Lockerbie we're talking about, Al. The town that terrorists crashed a plane into. Not quite the body count of 9/11 but for Scotland, it's pretty much an equivalent feeling. Let's face it. This was one time when you could have ignored the law and most people would have been on your side.
And don't forget, Oily Al, I'm a smoker. The lowest of the low. Filth of the sort you wouldn't scrape off your shoe - you'd throw those shoes away and buy new ones.
Also, don't forget why that is. You helped put me there. You're still helping. Your party is doing all it can to make me into the level of filth that if you stepped in it, you'd throw away every stitch you were wearing, scrub yourself in Dettol and buy a whole new wardrobe. Not just the clothes, the wardrobe too. This is where you helped to put me. This is where you are still kicking me and stamping me down harder.
So it should come as no surprise when I reveal my newest campaign slogan on behalf of the SNP.
"Vote SNP - set a terrorist free."
Catchy, isn't it? Very chantable, if I say so myself.
Hey, Oily Al, I did not choose to be your enemy. You chose that. I'm just trying to live up to your expectations.
How am I doing? Filthy and despicable enough yet, or should I try harder? It all depends on what your government does to me next.
Your move.
Scottish law allows for 'compassionate release' of prisoners who are likely to die shortly. It saves having to clear up stinky corpses from the cells and stops other prisoners worrying about being haunted by the likes of 'Poker' MacRamrod and 'Crikey, that's a marrow' MacWhopper. Agree with it or otherwise, that's the law.
So when doctors said that Mr. Mudguard only had three months to live, the SNP government ordered his release. They didn't do it to spite Labour, they didn't do it to spite Barry O'Blimey, they did it because well, they didn't really have a choice. It's the law. Doctors said he was about to croak, the law says they have to let him go home.
Now, Scottish Labour (who actually promote nothing of the kind) insist the SNP issue an apology for following the law. Why? Because Mr. Mudguard didn't die as instructed by British doctors but was instead saved, and has maybe a couple more years in him, after seeing some Libyan doctors.
It seems to me that it might be worth talking to those Libyan doctors because they're better at treating terminal cancer cases than ours. They are keeping Mr. Mudguard alive long after ours had given up on him. Nobody has noticed that. They are all far too concerned that someone has lived beyond his legally-allocated time to wonder why that should be.
Al the Oily Fish should not, indeed must not apologise for working within the law. There are damn few instances of that in politics as it is. He should simply point out that MSPs are not in a position to predict the life expectancy of cancer patients and therefore they must rely on the expert testimony of the doctors. If the doctors screw up, they should apologise. Not the government.
Go on, Al. Just once. Let them demand that apology in Holyrood. Let them howl for it with impassioned lies and deep insincerity.
Then stand up, clear your throat and say 'Ach, awa' an' bile yer heid, ya wee bawbag'. Then take a swig of Buckfast and sit down. The reaction would be well worth seeing, don't you think?
And while doing that, you might want to consider how the smoking ban will affect my campaign on your behalf. Oh, I agree you have nothing to apologise for - indeed, in upholding the law to the letter, you have much to take pride in but then I'm a smoker and you have laws about me too. They don't include giving me three months without punishment, not even at the end. I also realise that few people have ever, or will ever hear this argument and even if they do it's not going to cut any ice with them.
This is Lockerbie we're talking about, Al. The town that terrorists crashed a plane into. Not quite the body count of 9/11 but for Scotland, it's pretty much an equivalent feeling. Let's face it. This was one time when you could have ignored the law and most people would have been on your side.
And don't forget, Oily Al, I'm a smoker. The lowest of the low. Filth of the sort you wouldn't scrape off your shoe - you'd throw those shoes away and buy new ones.
Also, don't forget why that is. You helped put me there. You're still helping. Your party is doing all it can to make me into the level of filth that if you stepped in it, you'd throw away every stitch you were wearing, scrub yourself in Dettol and buy a whole new wardrobe. Not just the clothes, the wardrobe too. This is where you helped to put me. This is where you are still kicking me and stamping me down harder.
So it should come as no surprise when I reveal my newest campaign slogan on behalf of the SNP.
"Vote SNP - set a terrorist free."
Catchy, isn't it? Very chantable, if I say so myself.
Hey, Oily Al, I did not choose to be your enemy. You chose that. I'm just trying to live up to your expectations.
How am I doing? Filthy and despicable enough yet, or should I try harder? It all depends on what your government does to me next.
Your move.
Coincidence.
Shattered tonight. Busy day today and the same again tomorrow. Even so, a chilling thing has happened to me (again). I don't believe in any of this telepathy or precognition stuff, but I cannot ignore this little coincidence.
A couple of days ago, I had a request for a full novel manuscript. A scary story set, as are many of my scary stories over the years, in the fictional town of Marchway. A town full of strange and distorted characters, many in positions of influence. The local people often don't even notice the bizarre creatures in their midst. That submission was the longest Marchway-based story I've ever sent anywhere.
Shortly after that request, this hit the news.
Then this.
And this.
And this.
All these unlikely tales of terror and despair are true. Not made-up. True. They all happened in a real place.
Called Medway.
I think I need a very stiff drink.
A couple of days ago, I had a request for a full novel manuscript. A scary story set, as are many of my scary stories over the years, in the fictional town of Marchway. A town full of strange and distorted characters, many in positions of influence. The local people often don't even notice the bizarre creatures in their midst. That submission was the longest Marchway-based story I've ever sent anywhere.
Shortly after that request, this hit the news.
Then this.
And this.
And this.
All these unlikely tales of terror and despair are true. Not made-up. True. They all happened in a real place.
Called Medway.
I think I need a very stiff drink.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Is that tide about to turn?
Corrugated Soundbite points out that the cameraman responsible for the 'ciggie thugs' video has this listed as a hobby on his YouTube account:
'calling chavs and smokers idiots'
Interesting hobby. My latest hobby is 'scaring smokophobes to death with psychology' and I think it's a little more creative than just sneering and saying 'idiot'.
So he is happy to sneer at smokers and declare himself a superior being. Yet, on the posted video, faced with a few comments, he backs away and attempts to claim that all he did was film the event. Interesting how quickly the bullies back down, isn't it?
The thing is, if you read through the Emails posted at Fuel Injected Moose - copies of which have been sent to the relevant people - more information comes to light.
A local quango known as 'A Better Medway' (presumably they'll count it as 'better' when it is occupied only by the Aryan race) were involved, as were the council and local NHS. The camera equipment was provided.
So, the cameraman wasn't just a random observer. He was an integral part of it. Now he seems to be worried that it might affect his reputation as a photographer, he's trying to play it down. I note that he has no concerns about what this does to his reputation as a human being.
No compromise, smokophobe. Don't complain when we play your game by your rules.
Anyone overweight had better learn the rules too. In the Telegraph, some slaphead denounces fatty foods as the cause of all the world's ills.
There’s something about the dish known as bacon explosion that’s typically American. If you haven’t come across it, the recipe comprises Italian sausagemeat and syrupy barbecue sauce all bound up in a sort of roll with a lattice of fatty bacon, then smoked on a barbecue at a rate of one hour per inch. The whole thing contains about half a kilo of fat.
It is not a meal for one. That 'half kilo of fat' guess only applies if you eat the whole thing and those that could are rare indeed. Personally, I'd quite like a slice, but there's no way I could eat much more than that and certainly not every day. It's not the food, Mr. Extended Forehead. It's how much you eat.
And then there’s the obesity question.
Ah yes, the obesity question. It all depends on how you define 'obese', and if that definition is 'anyone fatter than me' then the world's your oyster. Unless you're the fattest man in the world in which case you're pretty much going to get the blame for everything. So that's the question. What's the answer?
The bacon explosion looks like the kind of dish that you need to be fat already in order to enjoy.
Only if you plan to eat all of it yourself at one sitting. I can enjoy a cream cake without getting fat because I don't eat many of them. See? It's not hard. You don't need to be fat to enjoy fatty food and you don't need to get fat if you eat it. Only if you eat a lot of it regularly.
Here’s a website – This is why you’re fat – which is entirely devoted to this special category of foodstuffs. If you can cope with this kind of menu item ... you’re liable to have a massive stomach in the first place. Truly, it’s no wonder the website carries the sub-heading “where dreams become heart attacks”.
The picture of 'nacho pizza cake' is not the reason anyone, anywhere is fat. It could be the reason someone spent all night throwing up but fat? No chance. Nobody could keep that down. As for tinned chicken, why is that particularly fattening? It doesn't look like a one-portion can to me, it just looks like a means of storing chicken long-term. Chicken isn't a very fatty food either.
It's made-up nonsense. It's fatophobes making up ridiculous food combinations in huge portions and convincing themselves that it's what fat people eat. It bears no resemblance to reality yet fatophobes everywhere will nod in sage agreement because it suits their particular bigotry. The idea that nobody but a fat person can eat fatty foods, the implication that anyone presented with an entire meatloaf will instantly devour it all, leads to the denormalisation and finally dehumanisation of fat people.
Listen to the smokers, fat people. We've seen the same methods. Soon they'll hide their children from you because they'll be convinced you'll eat them, and if you don't, they might catch obesity from you.
Eventually, you too will be attacked in the street by teacher-encouraged thugs while a cameraman films you and calls you 'idiot'. Probably the same one.
Turn on them now, fatties. Right now. Don't sit back and think 'well, perhaps they're right' because they're not. They aren't even bothering with the truth. What you are facing is pure, unreasoning hate. Turn on them, vent your anger at them, and when they harass you, harass them back. Ignore any attempt at compromise because they don't want compromise. They want it all. If you let up even for a moment they will surge forward again.
It's what we smokers should have done a long time ago. It took children attacking smokers in the street to really get the rage going. There have been smoker comments on smokophobes' articles for a long time but they were generally an attempt at reasoned debate. The smokophobes dismissed them all. They don't care about reasoned debate.
Then, that video changed the mood. Smokers and non-smokers raged at the YouTube posting and the smokophobe photographer backed off sharpish. He's been kicking the dog for a long time and all it did was yelp. Now it's barking and baring its teeth and he's looking for a way out. Well, there isn't one.
I considered contacting You Tube and reminding them of the 'happy slapping' craze they were blamed for. They are about to get blamed for another one. Then I thought no, leave it there. Let that craze happen. There are too many smokers who will just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them. Let's see if they'll accept this.
Let's see who the police arrest when the inevitable happens and a smokophobe gets beaten to a pulp for attacking a smoker. Let's see how the press can spin that one. Let's make it public.
Many smokers are unaware of the conversations on the internet. They won't hear the arguments, they never know where the next restriction has come from, they will be surprised when some spotty youth snatches their cigarette and they will be enraged. Good.
It's about time.
UPDATE: The photographer has removed the video. That is a historic moment. it's the first time a smokophobe has backed down. However, the little Nazis have one of their own, and here it is -
I wonder if they'll back down too?
'calling chavs and smokers idiots'
Interesting hobby. My latest hobby is 'scaring smokophobes to death with psychology' and I think it's a little more creative than just sneering and saying 'idiot'.
So he is happy to sneer at smokers and declare himself a superior being. Yet, on the posted video, faced with a few comments, he backs away and attempts to claim that all he did was film the event. Interesting how quickly the bullies back down, isn't it?
The thing is, if you read through the Emails posted at Fuel Injected Moose - copies of which have been sent to the relevant people - more information comes to light.
A local quango known as 'A Better Medway' (presumably they'll count it as 'better' when it is occupied only by the Aryan race) were involved, as were the council and local NHS. The camera equipment was provided.
So, the cameraman wasn't just a random observer. He was an integral part of it. Now he seems to be worried that it might affect his reputation as a photographer, he's trying to play it down. I note that he has no concerns about what this does to his reputation as a human being.
No compromise, smokophobe. Don't complain when we play your game by your rules.
Anyone overweight had better learn the rules too. In the Telegraph, some slaphead denounces fatty foods as the cause of all the world's ills.
There’s something about the dish known as bacon explosion that’s typically American. If you haven’t come across it, the recipe comprises Italian sausagemeat and syrupy barbecue sauce all bound up in a sort of roll with a lattice of fatty bacon, then smoked on a barbecue at a rate of one hour per inch. The whole thing contains about half a kilo of fat.
It is not a meal for one. That 'half kilo of fat' guess only applies if you eat the whole thing and those that could are rare indeed. Personally, I'd quite like a slice, but there's no way I could eat much more than that and certainly not every day. It's not the food, Mr. Extended Forehead. It's how much you eat.
And then there’s the obesity question.
Ah yes, the obesity question. It all depends on how you define 'obese', and if that definition is 'anyone fatter than me' then the world's your oyster. Unless you're the fattest man in the world in which case you're pretty much going to get the blame for everything. So that's the question. What's the answer?
The bacon explosion looks like the kind of dish that you need to be fat already in order to enjoy.
Only if you plan to eat all of it yourself at one sitting. I can enjoy a cream cake without getting fat because I don't eat many of them. See? It's not hard. You don't need to be fat to enjoy fatty food and you don't need to get fat if you eat it. Only if you eat a lot of it regularly.
Here’s a website – This is why you’re fat – which is entirely devoted to this special category of foodstuffs. If you can cope with this kind of menu item ... you’re liable to have a massive stomach in the first place. Truly, it’s no wonder the website carries the sub-heading “where dreams become heart attacks”.
The picture of 'nacho pizza cake' is not the reason anyone, anywhere is fat. It could be the reason someone spent all night throwing up but fat? No chance. Nobody could keep that down. As for tinned chicken, why is that particularly fattening? It doesn't look like a one-portion can to me, it just looks like a means of storing chicken long-term. Chicken isn't a very fatty food either.
It's made-up nonsense. It's fatophobes making up ridiculous food combinations in huge portions and convincing themselves that it's what fat people eat. It bears no resemblance to reality yet fatophobes everywhere will nod in sage agreement because it suits their particular bigotry. The idea that nobody but a fat person can eat fatty foods, the implication that anyone presented with an entire meatloaf will instantly devour it all, leads to the denormalisation and finally dehumanisation of fat people.
Listen to the smokers, fat people. We've seen the same methods. Soon they'll hide their children from you because they'll be convinced you'll eat them, and if you don't, they might catch obesity from you.
Eventually, you too will be attacked in the street by teacher-encouraged thugs while a cameraman films you and calls you 'idiot'. Probably the same one.
Turn on them now, fatties. Right now. Don't sit back and think 'well, perhaps they're right' because they're not. They aren't even bothering with the truth. What you are facing is pure, unreasoning hate. Turn on them, vent your anger at them, and when they harass you, harass them back. Ignore any attempt at compromise because they don't want compromise. They want it all. If you let up even for a moment they will surge forward again.
It's what we smokers should have done a long time ago. It took children attacking smokers in the street to really get the rage going. There have been smoker comments on smokophobes' articles for a long time but they were generally an attempt at reasoned debate. The smokophobes dismissed them all. They don't care about reasoned debate.
Then, that video changed the mood. Smokers and non-smokers raged at the YouTube posting and the smokophobe photographer backed off sharpish. He's been kicking the dog for a long time and all it did was yelp. Now it's barking and baring its teeth and he's looking for a way out. Well, there isn't one.
I considered contacting You Tube and reminding them of the 'happy slapping' craze they were blamed for. They are about to get blamed for another one. Then I thought no, leave it there. Let that craze happen. There are too many smokers who will just sit back and accept whatever is thrown at them. Let's see if they'll accept this.
Let's see who the police arrest when the inevitable happens and a smokophobe gets beaten to a pulp for attacking a smoker. Let's see how the press can spin that one. Let's make it public.
Many smokers are unaware of the conversations on the internet. They won't hear the arguments, they never know where the next restriction has come from, they will be surprised when some spotty youth snatches their cigarette and they will be enraged. Good.
It's about time.
UPDATE: The photographer has removed the video. That is a historic moment. it's the first time a smokophobe has backed down. However, the little Nazis have one of their own, and here it is -
I wonder if they'll back down too?
The night train to anywhere.
The overnight train from Barcelona to Milan had a surprise in store for its passengers. It took them to Zurich instead.
Now that's a pretty surreal experience. How can it happen?
The overnight Salvador Dalí train,
Ah, right.
Always check the train guard's watch. If it's melted, wait for the next train.
Now that's a pretty surreal experience. How can it happen?
The overnight Salvador Dalí train,
Ah, right.
Always check the train guard's watch. If it's melted, wait for the next train.
Training the New Blackshirts.
The comments below this video on YouTube are enlightening. Even the member who posted it, the cameraman who shot the film, attempts to distance himself from it. Only those in the film don't see any problem with what they are doing. Oh, and the local police don't have a problem with it either.
Via Dick Puddlecote, the source of this sorry tale of hate and spite is here. Fuel Injected Moose has the story too, along with the contact details for the female Fagin who runs this merry band of thieves.
What is interesting is that the police were informed, by Fagin herself, exactly what they planned to do and the police were fine with that. Filming in the street? Anyone else gets stopped under anti-tourist laws but if they are going to film assaults on smokers, no problem.
Happy slapping? Not allowed. Oh, your targets are smokers? Well that's all right then, you carry on.
Theft? That's against the law. Oh, you're going to steal from smokers? That's fine, they don't count.
Try it here, and the first cry of 'ciggie busters' will be met by a response of 'thief thumpers'. Sure, I'll end up in court for defending myself from a street mugging but that little bastard will spend time in hospital and I know just what he's likely to catch in there. Prison is more hygienic. And I'll be able to smoke in there. Sounds like a good deal to me. It'll save time anyway, we're bound to be rounded up and imprisoned soon enough.
The State sanctioning of violence against smokers has never been more clear. Schools are moving on from getting kids to harass their smoking parents to teaching them actual street-violence against a group of people. Yet the State whines that we aren't paying UK duty on our tobacco, we aren't supporting pubs, clubs and restaurants in the recession and that we are a drain on the NHS that we have more than paid for while being excluded from it.
I'm still sticking little magnets everywhere. I'll have to print more.
The smokophobia goes further. A game is now available that allows you to shoot smokers. There have already been assaults and deaths due to smokophobes attacking smokers in the street - where they have been thrown to get them out of the sight of the smokophobic Righteous. Now it seems it's okay to shoot at us. Oh, it's just a game. For now. Those children show where it's heading. With police support.
We should never have let them have that first non-smoking carriage on the train.
It is no longer a war of words. The smokophobes now use open violence. The police don't mind. The medics won't mind either, because they won't have to stitch us up afterwards. As smokers, they can just let us die unless we conform to their dictated lifestyle.
Watch for the first smoker in court for daring to defend themselves against the indoctrinated morons of the Gorgon Youth. Yes, Labour did this and what are the Coagulation going to do?
Nothing. They are too busy looking at ways to cull the pensioner population.
You can be arrested for looking at a Muslim in a funny way in this country, even if the Muslim isn't offended at all but some random stranger perceives your look to be offensive. Yet tell the police you plan to start mugging smokers in broad daylight and that is perfectly okay.
Cleggeron, just put up the damn swastika flag and get it over with, will you? Then you can give pretty armbands to all your nasty little Stasi and arm them with smoker-bashing sticks. You might as well hand out the drinker-thumping steel bars and the fat-people cattle prods at the same time. We know it's coming. Just do it. Maybe then we'll see a reaction. Maybe then all those smokers who just shrug and accept every new restriction will finally say 'Hang on...'
No wonder they wanted us disarmed.
No poofters.
The Catholic Church has rules.
Rule 1 - No poofters.
Rule 2 - Nobody is to molest the choirboys in any way at all - if there's anybody watching.
Rule 3 - No poofters.
And so on.
I think their rules and indeed their whole concept of having a Pope who is a direct line to a God who is omnipotent yet perpetually in need of money is just stupid. But I'm not a member of that club so its rules are irrelevant to me. They can choose whoever they want as members. They are very unlikely to choose me even though I'm not a poofter, because I have no interest at all in either choirs or boys and can't exercise the level of restraint in oratory which was exemplified by Ian Paisley.
Even so, I have no objection to the existence of the Catholic Church because it's none of my business. Their rules don't bind me. All I need do to avoid their rules is not go there. It's hardly onerous.
Yet the State doesn't see it that way. According to the State, a Catholic adoption agency funded by the Catholic church must fit with State rules, not the rules applied by their funders. They must allow gay couples to adopt even though their religion (and funding source) forbids it and even though gay couples have other sources of children who all look the same and are all equally repellent anyway.
I have no... interest in who adopts who. Really. Any home life has to be better than life in a home, surely? I have to admit to zero experience in this matter so I stand to be corrected.
Even so, I doubt the number of gay couples wanting to adopt is very high. So if one agency says 'no poofters', is that really a problem? There are others who don't have that rule.
This adoption agency has been forced to close because if they can't say 'No poofters' then their funding stops. We taxpayers save nothing because we're not paying. The Cath Club is paying.
So - all the children on their books. What happens to them now?
Are they destined to grow up in storage?
Rule 1 - No poofters.
Rule 2 - Nobody is to molest the choirboys in any way at all - if there's anybody watching.
Rule 3 - No poofters.
And so on.
I think their rules and indeed their whole concept of having a Pope who is a direct line to a God who is omnipotent yet perpetually in need of money is just stupid. But I'm not a member of that club so its rules are irrelevant to me. They can choose whoever they want as members. They are very unlikely to choose me even though I'm not a poofter, because I have no interest at all in either choirs or boys and can't exercise the level of restraint in oratory which was exemplified by Ian Paisley.
Even so, I have no objection to the existence of the Catholic Church because it's none of my business. Their rules don't bind me. All I need do to avoid their rules is not go there. It's hardly onerous.
Yet the State doesn't see it that way. According to the State, a Catholic adoption agency funded by the Catholic church must fit with State rules, not the rules applied by their funders. They must allow gay couples to adopt even though their religion (and funding source) forbids it and even though gay couples have other sources of children who all look the same and are all equally repellent anyway.
I have no... interest in who adopts who. Really. Any home life has to be better than life in a home, surely? I have to admit to zero experience in this matter so I stand to be corrected.
Even so, I doubt the number of gay couples wanting to adopt is very high. So if one agency says 'no poofters', is that really a problem? There are others who don't have that rule.
This adoption agency has been forced to close because if they can't say 'No poofters' then their funding stops. We taxpayers save nothing because we're not paying. The Cath Club is paying.
So - all the children on their books. What happens to them now?
Are they destined to grow up in storage?
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Milky Milky
I remember school milk. In winter it had lumps of ice in it and in summer it was warm and revolting. There were a few weeks in spring and autumn when it was okay, but these were few. It wasn't 'a gift', it was compulsory. We were ordered to down the tepid proto-cheese or the white ice, no matter what.
Well, Maggie the Thatch took a lot of stick for getting rid of it over age 11 (I think) but I bet she didn't get many complaints from the poor sods who were expected to drink it. She wasn't the first milk cutter, there was one before her but that's going too far back for my ageing brain cells.
So it's not too surprising that the Cameroid didn't want to gain the reputation of The Milk Reaper or whatever Labour had in line for him. Even so, what's the big thing with milk?
The Telegraph has an article that debunks most of the 'milk is the wonder food' crap. It's cow juice, nothing more. It is not an essential part of the human diet and can't possibly be because it's produced by an entirely unrelated species. For an entirely non-human-related purpose.
I don't drink much milk. Once in a while in tea or coffee but I don't drink much of either of those. I like butter, sometimes cheese. So I'm not anti-milk and the following applies to me too. Yes, like most of you, I am a perv.
How else could you describe drinking the bodily secretions of another animal? When you get right down to it, it's no different to licking the slime off a fish or fellating a goat. I expect it tastes different though.
When you force children, by law, to drink the bodily secretions of another species, that's not just unnatural. That's really, really twisted. "Swallow it all, it's good for you" takes on a rather more sinister note when you think of it that way.
We have compulsory calorie labelling on lots of things now, but not on 'natural' foods. Apples and pears are natural foods. They are actually intended to be eaten. In the wild, we'd eat the whole thing, pips and all (some of us still do). The pips pass through and get deposited somewhere else in a pile of fertiliser, then grow into another tree and produce more food. It's a good system. It doesn't work so well with sewage processing but that's why we have garden centres to produce new trees.
It's natural for an animal (such as humans) to eat other animals if they are equipped to do it. Chimpanzees hunt smaller monkeys and eat them. Tigers will eat a chimpanzee if they can catch one. Is it unnatural for a human to eat a much larger animal, like a cow? Only if it's also unnatural for a hyena or a piranha fish to do that. We aren't the only species capable of co-ordinated hunting in groups.
However, sucking a cow's tits is just not natural, no matter which way you look at it. Since milk isn't natural, why then doesn't it have calories on it?
It contains a hell of a lot of calories. Watch a calf grow up fast, on nothing but milk. It contains a tremendous amount of energy. If humans were to take in that much energy, they'd... get fat.
While we hear all the lamenting over childhood obesity and allergies and diabetes, we simultaneously hear that children must be given milk every single day. A suspension of fat globules with dissolved sugars and a selection of proteins from a different species - that's good for children?
I don't drink enough milk to get the required amount of calcium. I get most of mine from red meat and black pudding.
Yes, humans do things that could be considered 'unnatural' all the time, like speaking and typing on keyboards and drilling holes in the sea bed and building funny-shaped places to live, miles above the surface of the planet. I'm sure all those woodland creatures, when they first saw a man with a plough, thought to themselves 'What the hell is that weirdo species up to now?' They must shake their heads in despair at those massive propellers all over the countryside. How windy do we want it to get?
Drinking milk is pretty low down the scale of human weirdness, really. Even so, it certainly can't be considered 'natural' and I suspect that if all those children were shown where it comes from, many of them would never touch it again.
There is nothing essential about cow's milk unless your child has four legs and says 'moo'. It's nice, it can be turned into a fantastic array of cheeses, it can be made into butter, frothed up to make cappuccino or flavoured with all sorts of weirdness but it is not an essential dietary component. Not like, say, whisky.
Now there's an idea. Free school whisky.
That would get the attendance figures up. Hell, I'd go back too.
Well, Maggie the Thatch took a lot of stick for getting rid of it over age 11 (I think) but I bet she didn't get many complaints from the poor sods who were expected to drink it. She wasn't the first milk cutter, there was one before her but that's going too far back for my ageing brain cells.
So it's not too surprising that the Cameroid didn't want to gain the reputation of The Milk Reaper or whatever Labour had in line for him. Even so, what's the big thing with milk?
The Telegraph has an article that debunks most of the 'milk is the wonder food' crap. It's cow juice, nothing more. It is not an essential part of the human diet and can't possibly be because it's produced by an entirely unrelated species. For an entirely non-human-related purpose.
I don't drink much milk. Once in a while in tea or coffee but I don't drink much of either of those. I like butter, sometimes cheese. So I'm not anti-milk and the following applies to me too. Yes, like most of you, I am a perv.
How else could you describe drinking the bodily secretions of another animal? When you get right down to it, it's no different to licking the slime off a fish or fellating a goat. I expect it tastes different though.
When you force children, by law, to drink the bodily secretions of another species, that's not just unnatural. That's really, really twisted. "Swallow it all, it's good for you" takes on a rather more sinister note when you think of it that way.
We have compulsory calorie labelling on lots of things now, but not on 'natural' foods. Apples and pears are natural foods. They are actually intended to be eaten. In the wild, we'd eat the whole thing, pips and all (some of us still do). The pips pass through and get deposited somewhere else in a pile of fertiliser, then grow into another tree and produce more food. It's a good system. It doesn't work so well with sewage processing but that's why we have garden centres to produce new trees.
It's natural for an animal (such as humans) to eat other animals if they are equipped to do it. Chimpanzees hunt smaller monkeys and eat them. Tigers will eat a chimpanzee if they can catch one. Is it unnatural for a human to eat a much larger animal, like a cow? Only if it's also unnatural for a hyena or a piranha fish to do that. We aren't the only species capable of co-ordinated hunting in groups.
However, sucking a cow's tits is just not natural, no matter which way you look at it. Since milk isn't natural, why then doesn't it have calories on it?
It contains a hell of a lot of calories. Watch a calf grow up fast, on nothing but milk. It contains a tremendous amount of energy. If humans were to take in that much energy, they'd... get fat.
While we hear all the lamenting over childhood obesity and allergies and diabetes, we simultaneously hear that children must be given milk every single day. A suspension of fat globules with dissolved sugars and a selection of proteins from a different species - that's good for children?
I don't drink enough milk to get the required amount of calcium. I get most of mine from red meat and black pudding.
Yes, humans do things that could be considered 'unnatural' all the time, like speaking and typing on keyboards and drilling holes in the sea bed and building funny-shaped places to live, miles above the surface of the planet. I'm sure all those woodland creatures, when they first saw a man with a plough, thought to themselves 'What the hell is that weirdo species up to now?' They must shake their heads in despair at those massive propellers all over the countryside. How windy do we want it to get?
Drinking milk is pretty low down the scale of human weirdness, really. Even so, it certainly can't be considered 'natural' and I suspect that if all those children were shown where it comes from, many of them would never touch it again.
There is nothing essential about cow's milk unless your child has four legs and says 'moo'. It's nice, it can be turned into a fantastic array of cheeses, it can be made into butter, frothed up to make cappuccino or flavoured with all sorts of weirdness but it is not an essential dietary component. Not like, say, whisky.
Now there's an idea. Free school whisky.
That would get the attendance figures up. Hell, I'd go back too.
Smokophobia database.
Dick Puddlecote has a cracking idea.
A collection of those sayings the smokophobes like to regard as fair and level argument (I'm not going to call them antismokers any more. They are sufficiently deranged to warrant a 'phobe' term. They've invented enough of their own).
Things like 'kill all smokers' and other sayings that can only come from dangerously unbalanced minds. Things that, if applied to any other group at all, would get them arrested.
Such a collection could be published and sent to all those politicians who support the ban, with a note to the effect of 'These are your supporters. This is how they think and you approve of this. Can you explain why, or should we start sewing on the yellow badges now?'
The smokophobes demand that we stop buying from Man with a Van and pay that duty so the NHS won't have to be cut. The NHS already treats smokers like lepers, they have decided that none of their staff will be allowed to smoke even in their own homes and that any staff carrying tobacco will be subject to disciplinary action. Should we smokers pay more to be shat on harder?
The NHS is of no use to me at all now. They will not treat what's really wrong with me, they'll assume that no matter what I present with, from scrofula to rabies, it was caused by smoking. They'll demand that I change my lifestyle to the approved one or I won't get treatment, and I see no point extending my life if it is to be as a drone. 'Live long and stagnate' is the medical mantra now. It's not for me.
They are planning to refuse to treat me at all unless I obey the 'give up' diktat. Don't get smug, smokophobes, especially if you are a little overweight or like a drink, or just don't fit the BMA's British Standard Human. You're on the list too. Obey or die. I don't know about you, but I can only choose 'die'. Obey is simply not an option.
I'm still working on the other reasons why I wouldn't use the NHS even if they'd let me. The free-at-point-of-infection diseases they supply. There's a lot to say but it needs to be carefully worded. I am a microbiologist and that's not the safe occupation it used to be. There was a time when we just worried about infecting ourselves. Now we worry about visiting the woods.
And now, I have to go and do something else. A publisher has just requested a full manuscript of a novel. It's the first time that's happened so I have to reply and celebrate with whisky. It requires concentration because I really have to do those things in the right order. So I'll shut up for the night.
...maybe.
A collection of those sayings the smokophobes like to regard as fair and level argument (I'm not going to call them antismokers any more. They are sufficiently deranged to warrant a 'phobe' term. They've invented enough of their own).
Things like 'kill all smokers' and other sayings that can only come from dangerously unbalanced minds. Things that, if applied to any other group at all, would get them arrested.
Such a collection could be published and sent to all those politicians who support the ban, with a note to the effect of 'These are your supporters. This is how they think and you approve of this. Can you explain why, or should we start sewing on the yellow badges now?'
The smokophobes demand that we stop buying from Man with a Van and pay that duty so the NHS won't have to be cut. The NHS already treats smokers like lepers, they have decided that none of their staff will be allowed to smoke even in their own homes and that any staff carrying tobacco will be subject to disciplinary action. Should we smokers pay more to be shat on harder?
The NHS is of no use to me at all now. They will not treat what's really wrong with me, they'll assume that no matter what I present with, from scrofula to rabies, it was caused by smoking. They'll demand that I change my lifestyle to the approved one or I won't get treatment, and I see no point extending my life if it is to be as a drone. 'Live long and stagnate' is the medical mantra now. It's not for me.
They are planning to refuse to treat me at all unless I obey the 'give up' diktat. Don't get smug, smokophobes, especially if you are a little overweight or like a drink, or just don't fit the BMA's British Standard Human. You're on the list too. Obey or die. I don't know about you, but I can only choose 'die'. Obey is simply not an option.
I'm still working on the other reasons why I wouldn't use the NHS even if they'd let me. The free-at-point-of-infection diseases they supply. There's a lot to say but it needs to be carefully worded. I am a microbiologist and that's not the safe occupation it used to be. There was a time when we just worried about infecting ourselves. Now we worry about visiting the woods.
And now, I have to go and do something else. A publisher has just requested a full manuscript of a novel. It's the first time that's happened so I have to reply and celebrate with whisky. It requires concentration because I really have to do those things in the right order. So I'll shut up for the night.
...maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)