Sunday, July 25, 2010

Honest, I don't read the Sun but

I got there via an embedded link in one of Tim's posts. And it was quite amusing. Extracts from a book I'll have to get once it comes out in paperback.

Although "mimping whiffler" is quite good, I particularly liked

COCKTHROPPLED: Having an unusually large Adam's apple. 

Now, who do we (society that is - I'm actually too polite when sober) normally snigger at for having larger than expected Adam's apples? Trannies (whether -vestite or -sexual - and I think transgender means something different as well but I really can't be bothered. Splitters!) of course.

Now, would you say that their cocks might have been throppled?

Saturday, July 24, 2010

To the First Minister, a modest suggestion.

In response to Senator Lautenberg's pleading, I'd like to make the following wholly politically inappropriate suggestion to Wee Alec for his response:

"The decisions of the democratically elected government of Scotland are not subject to review by the legislative branch, or any other part, of the government of the United States of America. Regardless of any need for co-operation or conversations between our respective executives, a public show trial in Washington is a completely inappropriate mechanism for international political discourse.

Special pleading by Democratic Senators needing to bolster their colleagues' mid-term re-election chances does not materially alter any of these points.

Or, in brief, FOAD!"

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Support John Dixon

Yes, a councillor did actually say something honest, accurate and not fed through the local party PR machine before regurgitation:

I didn't know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.
Scientology is an enormous con - bigger than advanced fee fraud, just with better lawyers.  They don't have "churches", they have "mark fleecing centres".

'Stupid', to be analytical after the event, as is the right, nay the duty, of the commentariat everywhere, may not have been quite as good as "spectacularly gullible" or "needy, desperate and naive" but, in the context of 140 characters, it's a damn good approximation.

Religious tolerance, yes, to an extent. But only for religions, not for scams invented by a third-rate sci-fi hack writer.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Okay, this is strange

I have a draft in progress. It's nothing special - my thoughts on some of the killings that have happened recently. But work - both professional and social - got in the way and then I've spent an evening with my family. So I come back - the browser is still active and what is in the window?
But then, moving on, the researchers asked a further set of questions, about whether science could be usefully deployed to understand all kinds of stuff, all entirely unrelated to stereotypes about homosexuality: "the existence of clairvoyance", "the effectiveness of spanking as a disciplinary technique for children", "the effect of viewing television violence on violent behaviour", "the accuracy of astrology in predicting personality traits" and "the mental and physical health effects of herbal medications".

It's from a Ben Goldacre article published on BBC World about a week or so ago, apparently. The boggle minds! I'll blame it on a hash collision - YMMV.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

BBC Understatement

From here:

Hizb ut-Tahrir, a conservative Muslim group known for trying to push a strict Islamic agenda
As opposed to their more rational statement in a 2003 Newsnight report:

promotes racism and anti-Semitic hatred, calls suicide bombers martyrs, and urges Muslims to kill Jewish people. 

Of course, Hizb still operate freely in Britain ...

PS - I was more than slightly surprised to see this article posted freely on Hizb's UK site. Clearly copyright doesn't exist in Sharia but, no comment? No point-by-point repudiation? No foaming at the mouth> Very strange. Okay, it is in a folder entitled "propaganda-war", but, really ...

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Sauce for the Gander?

Just for the record, I'm as suspicious of the (ab)use of the Extradition Act 2003 in the Abid Nasser case as in the Gary McKinnon and Natwest Three ones.

If we know he is a member of Al Qaeda and suspect he was the leader of a plot to blow things up in the UK, why is he being arrested on a US warrant rather than charged under, well, ss11, 57 & 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and conspiracy to cause things to go "Boom"?
HTTP Error 403: You are not authorised to access the file "\real_name_and_address.html" on this server.

(c) 'Surreptitious Evil' 2006 - 2017.