I got a call today from 01792 306900. They were offering me cheaper mobile phone insurance.
I smelled a rat, so I asked them if they could tell me anything about my account, whether it was my home number, address, date of birth, anything. They couldn't tell me a thing apart from my mobile number (which they had dialled).
They tried this on me a few months back and I reported them to O2. I reported them again this time.
What I find confusing, however, is that after a little Googling today, this telephone number has been used for at least a year for the sole purpose of extorting money out of people, pretending to be offering phone insurance for people.
In total, this is the third time a Swansea based number has been used to try and scam me out of money like this. The first time, I had bought a phone from Phones4U where they were so desperate for me to get phone insurance, they gave me in cash more than the total amount of the insurance over a 12 month period. I wondered why until I got that call.
But if this company keeps using a Swansea based number, surely someone can try and sort it out? Can't someone call BT and say something along the lines of 'where does 01792 306900 go?'
I know that I've jested about Swansea and the people of Swansea in the past, but this is no joke; these people are like a bath filled with fresh human turds, covered with five day old custard and gone-off gravy.
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
Saturday, 9 August 2008
AblazeUK 08 - A Personal Review
The AblazeUK Apostolic Church conference finished on Thursday so I figured I'd do a little review to say what I thought were the good points and bad points. Some of it will be tongue-in-cheek, but I'll leave it up to your intelligence to work out which bits they are.
now then, to counter the tradition of reviews, I'm going to give say straight away what I thought of the conference; If I had to use but one word, it would be Brilliant. If I was allowed to use two words, they would be Absolutely and Brilliant. Three words? Absolutely, Utterly and Brilliant.
So, here's my breakdown
Content
I've not been shy of saying that past conferences have been a little short of not very good, mainly because of the content. This time, the content was everything I needed; challenging, funny, uncomfortably revealing, comforting, uplifting, directing, renewing... lots of really good stuff.
Apart from one (maybe two) shouty sermons, the quality was out of this world. Jeff Lucas is, in my opinion, a Christian equivalent to a cross between Larry David and Ben Elton, but with his 'observational preaching' (have I just coined a phrase there?) came numerous very sharp points that made me reconsider my attitude toward much of my life. The same can be said about Malcolm Duncan who was sharp and honest. The new National Leader showed from the start that he means business and that frightens me - which is a great thing!
There was a very healthy emphasis on prayer. The word emphasis doesn't do this justice. In past conferences, prayer was a sideline, a fringe event for extremists with zip-up Bibles and notepads the size of a small table. This time, prayer was everywhere.
This is how much this conference has changed; there was more emphasis placed on prayer than there was on money.
How awesome is that!? Oddly enough, the lack of emphasis on money made me happier to give money to the cause and wish I had more to give.
The content of the conference alone is enough to make up for anything bad that could be said about the event. It was astounding. Could it be better? I hope so else there's not much to look forward to next year, but this conference was such an enormous leap that I'm still catching my breath.
Did I mention that this was very good?
Amenities
So, the meat aside, let's look at some trivial, dare I say periphery issues. For example, the toilets. Yes, the toilets. These are the kind of toilet you daren't stay in for longer than five minutes else your clothes will stink of that blue radioactive goo they use to flush the things. Euch. Not nice and everyone outside can see your pants if you need to do a Number 2 (unless you're someone who keeps them around your knees and not ankles).
Food was good, if a little pricey - but you could always shop around for a bargain in the food tent. For example, Bacon Fries were 60p on one table but 50p on the other. Great, save some money and slap it into the collection basket (actually, it was more of a collection sick-bowl - I'm sure I've hurled chunks into a bowl like that before).
However you look at it, the food tent provided a handy meeting and eating place where you could browse some good books and get yourself a carved wooden angel (who came up with that idea!? Carved wooden angels that seem to have the same sentiment as Carebears - Here's Happy Angel, here's Comforting Angel, here's Special-Time-Of-The-Month Angel and here's Gardening Angel).
You just had to be careful if you sat in the eating area 'cause you could have gone flying head-over-heels on a floor that was about as flat as the Brecon Beacons.
There was also an underused creche facility. Underused because (rightfully) proud parents would (wrongly) rather block isles and exits with triple-buggy prams and bags of bottles so that everone can see the fruit of their loins, instead of making use of the actual creche and allow the rest of the conference get on with things without having to watch a brat puking up his flumps and flying saucers. However, I must provide disclosure here and say that I spent three services with my awesome nephews, right there in the tent, so go ahead and shoot me.
Location
I still do not understand why the Apostolic Church chose Swansea for the conference. Swansea is not central, is not accessible..... is not even nice. It was only called a city because the people there were jealous of Cardiff and if a city's biggest selling point is a fountain outside McDonald's, then you get the jist of Swansea (yes, I know, there's Rhosilli, Gower etc - but isn't it odd that all the best things about Swansea are outside of Swansea, where the people aren't?)
But, let it not be said that I never have anything good to say about Swansea - the parking for the conference was reasonable at £1.50 per day and you were within walking distance of the shops... and the fountain outside McDonald's. There is a beach, if you don't mind playing Super-Frogger in the four lanes of traffic, but take a plastic bag - you may want to clean a spot for yourself in the sand before you sit down (I was lucky, I found an old crate which kept my botty clear of the ground which makes the conference toilets look good enough to eat off).
Company
Some people say that your average Apostolic is like a Pharisee with the friendliness taken out. I think that's terribly unfair and the Pharisees weren't as bad as that. Yet, the sad truth is that the conference is geared toward people who are either in couples or in groups. There is no provision whatsoever for single, on-their-own, honest-to-goodness, lonely people. There's nothing at all to do in the day, unless you're in a group or you're a woman and the day starts with a Mon.
If you go to the morning service, you have a limited choice for what to do in the afternoon;
Conclusion
I wanted to start with the serious positives before moving onto the not-so-serious negatives because the positive is so positive, I found I really don't care about the negatives. In the past, I've felt that there wasn't enough positive to warrant enduring the negatives, but this time, things were different and, more importantly, by the end of the conference, I was different.
You see, looking at all the negatives I've written here, it sounds like I want to world to change to suit me. I did. But the bottom line is that rather than change the world to make me feel comfortable, God is in the business of changing me to make me stronger.
In the same way as I had to learn to deal with the negatives in order to appreciate the very real positives in this year's conference, I encourage anybody who's offended by this review to get over it.
;-)
now then, to counter the tradition of reviews, I'm going to give say straight away what I thought of the conference; If I had to use but one word, it would be Brilliant. If I was allowed to use two words, they would be Absolutely and Brilliant. Three words? Absolutely, Utterly and Brilliant.
So, here's my breakdown
Content
I've not been shy of saying that past conferences have been a little short of not very good, mainly because of the content. This time, the content was everything I needed; challenging, funny, uncomfortably revealing, comforting, uplifting, directing, renewing... lots of really good stuff.
Apart from one (maybe two) shouty sermons, the quality was out of this world. Jeff Lucas is, in my opinion, a Christian equivalent to a cross between Larry David and Ben Elton, but with his 'observational preaching' (have I just coined a phrase there?) came numerous very sharp points that made me reconsider my attitude toward much of my life. The same can be said about Malcolm Duncan who was sharp and honest. The new National Leader showed from the start that he means business and that frightens me - which is a great thing!
There was a very healthy emphasis on prayer. The word emphasis doesn't do this justice. In past conferences, prayer was a sideline, a fringe event for extremists with zip-up Bibles and notepads the size of a small table. This time, prayer was everywhere.
This is how much this conference has changed; there was more emphasis placed on prayer than there was on money.
How awesome is that!? Oddly enough, the lack of emphasis on money made me happier to give money to the cause and wish I had more to give.
The content of the conference alone is enough to make up for anything bad that could be said about the event. It was astounding. Could it be better? I hope so else there's not much to look forward to next year, but this conference was such an enormous leap that I'm still catching my breath.
Did I mention that this was very good?
Amenities
So, the meat aside, let's look at some trivial, dare I say periphery issues. For example, the toilets. Yes, the toilets. These are the kind of toilet you daren't stay in for longer than five minutes else your clothes will stink of that blue radioactive goo they use to flush the things. Euch. Not nice and everyone outside can see your pants if you need to do a Number 2 (unless you're someone who keeps them around your knees and not ankles).
Food was good, if a little pricey - but you could always shop around for a bargain in the food tent. For example, Bacon Fries were 60p on one table but 50p on the other. Great, save some money and slap it into the collection basket (actually, it was more of a collection sick-bowl - I'm sure I've hurled chunks into a bowl like that before).
However you look at it, the food tent provided a handy meeting and eating place where you could browse some good books and get yourself a carved wooden angel (who came up with that idea!? Carved wooden angels that seem to have the same sentiment as Carebears - Here's Happy Angel, here's Comforting Angel, here's Special-Time-Of-The-Month Angel and here's Gardening Angel).
You just had to be careful if you sat in the eating area 'cause you could have gone flying head-over-heels on a floor that was about as flat as the Brecon Beacons.
There was also an underused creche facility. Underused because (rightfully) proud parents would (wrongly) rather block isles and exits with triple-buggy prams and bags of bottles so that everone can see the fruit of their loins, instead of making use of the actual creche and allow the rest of the conference get on with things without having to watch a brat puking up his flumps and flying saucers. However, I must provide disclosure here and say that I spent three services with my awesome nephews, right there in the tent, so go ahead and shoot me.
Location
I still do not understand why the Apostolic Church chose Swansea for the conference. Swansea is not central, is not accessible..... is not even nice. It was only called a city because the people there were jealous of Cardiff and if a city's biggest selling point is a fountain outside McDonald's, then you get the jist of Swansea (yes, I know, there's Rhosilli, Gower etc - but isn't it odd that all the best things about Swansea are outside of Swansea, where the people aren't?)
But, let it not be said that I never have anything good to say about Swansea - the parking for the conference was reasonable at £1.50 per day and you were within walking distance of the shops... and the fountain outside McDonald's. There is a beach, if you don't mind playing Super-Frogger in the four lanes of traffic, but take a plastic bag - you may want to clean a spot for yourself in the sand before you sit down (I was lucky, I found an old crate which kept my botty clear of the ground which makes the conference toilets look good enough to eat off).
Company
Some people say that your average Apostolic is like a Pharisee with the friendliness taken out. I think that's terribly unfair and the Pharisees weren't as bad as that. Yet, the sad truth is that the conference is geared toward people who are either in couples or in groups. There is no provision whatsoever for single, on-their-own, honest-to-goodness, lonely people. There's nothing at all to do in the day, unless you're in a group or you're a woman and the day starts with a Mon.
If you go to the morning service, you have a limited choice for what to do in the afternoon;
- Go home
- Walk into town (sorry, city)
- Stay in the food tent and look like a Billy-no-mates
- Sit in the main tent and practice your Christian-Jedi tricks
Conclusion
I wanted to start with the serious positives before moving onto the not-so-serious negatives because the positive is so positive, I found I really don't care about the negatives. In the past, I've felt that there wasn't enough positive to warrant enduring the negatives, but this time, things were different and, more importantly, by the end of the conference, I was different.
You see, looking at all the negatives I've written here, it sounds like I want to world to change to suit me. I did. But the bottom line is that rather than change the world to make me feel comfortable, God is in the business of changing me to make me stronger.
In the same way as I had to learn to deal with the negatives in order to appreciate the very real positives in this year's conference, I encourage anybody who's offended by this review to get over it.
;-)
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
The Lost Chapter of the Gospel of Luke
[1] And after he did raise the dead, heal the lame and bring peace to the afflicted, behold, many yet believed Him not saying [2] "Yea, thou hast done many things but thou art also very preachy unto our ears. [3] Be thou not so preachy and we may yet believe that thou art He who Thou sayest thou art."
[4] Therefore did He say unto the twelve "As the sun riseth on the morning of the morrow, even the day that followest this, we shall go into the streets of the towns and villages with sticks of picking and pick up the litter thereof." [5] And Thomas did say "shall we not also weed the gardens of the people of the towns and the villages, picking up their daisies and mowing their lawns with a great mowing?" and thus they established in their hearts to do so, and they did preach not a word since then even unto this day.
[6] As the sun rose, they did pick up all the litter of the villages; skinds of the banana, packets of the crisp and teabags which were yet soggy were collected all, and the people marvelled. [7] Then did they the mowing of the lawns and the weeding of the gardens and the people were filled the people with awe, even as unto a great awe-filling, and the people did say among themselves "forsooth! The lame walked, the blind did see and the demon posessed were released but this! This is something our eyes have never beheld! Indeed, Israel hath never had such lawns and rockeries and clean streets!" [8] The middle classes have, even this day, nice gardens in which to have barbeques and the homeless have cleaner streets in which to sleep!
[9] And one, known as Gosphlius, did behold his well mown lawn and said "surely, this is the Son of God".
[4] Therefore did He say unto the twelve "As the sun riseth on the morning of the morrow, even the day that followest this, we shall go into the streets of the towns and villages with sticks of picking and pick up the litter thereof." [5] And Thomas did say "shall we not also weed the gardens of the people of the towns and the villages, picking up their daisies and mowing their lawns with a great mowing?" and thus they established in their hearts to do so, and they did preach not a word since then even unto this day.
[6] As the sun rose, they did pick up all the litter of the villages; skinds of the banana, packets of the crisp and teabags which were yet soggy were collected all, and the people marvelled. [7] Then did they the mowing of the lawns and the weeding of the gardens and the people were filled the people with awe, even as unto a great awe-filling, and the people did say among themselves "forsooth! The lame walked, the blind did see and the demon posessed were released but this! This is something our eyes have never beheld! Indeed, Israel hath never had such lawns and rockeries and clean streets!" [8] The middle classes have, even this day, nice gardens in which to have barbeques and the homeless have cleaner streets in which to sleep!
[9] And one, known as Gosphlius, did behold his well mown lawn and said "surely, this is the Son of God".
Thursday, 24 July 2008
Saturday, 12 July 2008
An Uninformed Opinion Of The Mobile Market
Back in the day, I was a massive mobile phone fanboy. People think I'm bad now? They should have seen me then. Driven by a fanaticism for a platform and a hatred of all things Microsoft, my web world wasn't a very pretty one (I still managed to get an e-mail from within Nokia thanking me for my website however!)
Things have changed since then and not only have I stopped actively blogging about mobile technology, I'm pretty much out of touch from the latest developments therein. I still pop into websites like All About Symbian and the hillarious PocketPC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts, but I'm aware that I'm ignorant of much that's happening.
Therefore, I thought I'd write up the impressions I have of the various mobile platforms regarding where they are and what they're about, and to explain why I feel nobody has yet arrived at mobile tech utopia.
Palm
Never used their stuff. Are they still around? Seriously, they do seem to be dead in the water. Nobody takes them seriously any more and every tech website I visit speaks of them in the past tense.
Nokia / Symbian
Nokia strikes me as the only company that's actually pushing a mobile platform. Even with Apple in the market, Nokia is the only one that is doing new things, trying new things and pushing new technology... except that it has jumped on the bandwagon of copying Apple's UI concepts which is always sad to see.
The problem I see with Nokia is that there's no smooth, seamless integration. The PC Suite software is bulky and built like a gorilla. I never had a problem with Nokia software and I hardly ever had a problem with synchronising, installing , upgrading etc. But Nokia is not getting the message across. For some reason, Nokia just doesn't seem to be able to get across to people just how damn useful its hardware is. There are even people who own Nokia Smartphones but don't know that you can install some really, really, really cool software for it.
This ignorance is going to be a problem to Nokia because companies like Microsoft and (now) Apple can come along and say they are introducing new technologies and functionality when the truth is that Nokia has had it all the time.
Sure, Nokia communicates style, but technology? Not so good.
Microsoft / Windows Mobile
Has this platform ever been any good? Sure, there's (almost) all the consumer functionality of a Nokia Smartphone and even more enterprise capability, but what's the point when the interface is clunky and confusing, the process management sucks the big one and it keeps crashing? While Nokia suffers from fragmentation aross platforms (Series60 v1, v2, v3 etc), Microsoft's platform suffers from device fragmentation, where something written for a version of Windows Mobile will work on one device but won't work on another, despite it running the same version of the OS!
A big problem that Microsoft has is that there's never anything new in Windows Mobile. There never seems to be something where someone can say 'Wow! I've never seen anything like that before!' because someone somewhere has always done what Microsoft is doing.
One more problem that Microsoft has is that, like Nokia, it just doesn't communicate very well, at least not outside the enterprise. Looking at the fantastic games and utilieies available for Windows Mobile, you'd think that it would be a big hit in the consumer market, but apart from GPS Navigation, people seem to be as ignorant of a Windows Mobile device as they are about a Nokia device.
Fragmented, stagnant, uninnovative and boring. That's how I see Windows Mobile.
Blackberry
I've never understood the awe that people in suits have for Blackberry devices. I've never understood how Blackberry is still going so strong when other more capable platforms can offer the exact same functionality and more.
If ever there was a one-trick-pony, it's the Blackberry. Apart from push e-mail, what do Blackerry devices even do? Java applications.
wow
Other Apple Wannabes
There's a plethora of iPhone clones on the market and some of them are pretty decent. Companies like Samsung and even Blackerry are in on the act. But watching these organisations produce their clones makes me feel like I'm watching David Brent do hos special dance - Cringeworthy. They may have merit, but they're selling their product on someone else's.
Apple
The iPhone, apperently, is a revolutionary mobile phone. I still don't see why people say this. The first iPhone was incredibly limited and, apart from the really nice User Interface, had nothing special. The new iPhone is much better, but is still limited in areas where I just don't get the reasoning. For example, still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding. Why!?
You could say that Apple is the opposite of Nokia and Microsoft in that it doesn't (or at least didn't) have much to offer but boy is it good at communicating. Steve Jobs and the Apple machine have a mind-blowing ability to communicate and inspire people who have no Smartphone preconceptions, and open to them a 'new world' of tech innovation - a world that has existed for many since the nineties. Apple has made technology accessible and broken down the 'too much hassle' wall.
The first iPhone was desired by many people but was outside of too many people's wallets (it took me months to save up for one). The new iPhone has rectified this and even brought it to Free on some contracts. This is a big plus and will help make Apple a huge success.
Second, though, is the App Store. Sure, you could (and still can) go to Handango, Symbian Gear and other websites to buy software for your Symbian or Windows Mobile Smartphone, but who knows? Who cares? And those online stores aren't exactly easy to use! Apple, however, have made it easier to buy software for your iPhone than it is to buy pants. In fact, to buy an application for a new iPhone is now exactly as easy as it is to buy a song from the iTunes Music Store. That is something big. Masses of regular, non-geek and non-nerdy people can finally start doing what geeks and nerds have been vainly trying to communicate for almost ten years, and it's Apple that has brought this. The queue outside the O2 store where I live is proof that it's no longer geeks and nerds who want an iPhone, contrary to the opinion of some.
There's still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding, there's no GPS navigation and the camera still sucks. But somehow, Apple has managed to pull the rug from under the feet of its competitors and I wouldn't be suprised if the suits in Microsoft, Nokia et al are still reeling from the swift 1-2 delivered by an Apple who may not yet have the market share, but has a monster chunk of mindshare.
Things have changed since then and not only have I stopped actively blogging about mobile technology, I'm pretty much out of touch from the latest developments therein. I still pop into websites like All About Symbian and the hillarious PocketPC Thoughts and Smartphone Thoughts, but I'm aware that I'm ignorant of much that's happening.
Therefore, I thought I'd write up the impressions I have of the various mobile platforms regarding where they are and what they're about, and to explain why I feel nobody has yet arrived at mobile tech utopia.
Palm
Never used their stuff. Are they still around? Seriously, they do seem to be dead in the water. Nobody takes them seriously any more and every tech website I visit speaks of them in the past tense.
Nokia / Symbian
Nokia strikes me as the only company that's actually pushing a mobile platform. Even with Apple in the market, Nokia is the only one that is doing new things, trying new things and pushing new technology... except that it has jumped on the bandwagon of copying Apple's UI concepts which is always sad to see.
The problem I see with Nokia is that there's no smooth, seamless integration. The PC Suite software is bulky and built like a gorilla. I never had a problem with Nokia software and I hardly ever had a problem with synchronising, installing , upgrading etc. But Nokia is not getting the message across. For some reason, Nokia just doesn't seem to be able to get across to people just how damn useful its hardware is. There are even people who own Nokia Smartphones but don't know that you can install some really, really, really cool software for it.
This ignorance is going to be a problem to Nokia because companies like Microsoft and (now) Apple can come along and say they are introducing new technologies and functionality when the truth is that Nokia has had it all the time.
Sure, Nokia communicates style, but technology? Not so good.
Microsoft / Windows Mobile
Has this platform ever been any good? Sure, there's (almost) all the consumer functionality of a Nokia Smartphone and even more enterprise capability, but what's the point when the interface is clunky and confusing, the process management sucks the big one and it keeps crashing? While Nokia suffers from fragmentation aross platforms (Series60 v1, v2, v3 etc), Microsoft's platform suffers from device fragmentation, where something written for a version of Windows Mobile will work on one device but won't work on another, despite it running the same version of the OS!
A big problem that Microsoft has is that there's never anything new in Windows Mobile. There never seems to be something where someone can say 'Wow! I've never seen anything like that before!' because someone somewhere has always done what Microsoft is doing.
One more problem that Microsoft has is that, like Nokia, it just doesn't communicate very well, at least not outside the enterprise. Looking at the fantastic games and utilieies available for Windows Mobile, you'd think that it would be a big hit in the consumer market, but apart from GPS Navigation, people seem to be as ignorant of a Windows Mobile device as they are about a Nokia device.
Fragmented, stagnant, uninnovative and boring. That's how I see Windows Mobile.
Blackberry
I've never understood the awe that people in suits have for Blackberry devices. I've never understood how Blackberry is still going so strong when other more capable platforms can offer the exact same functionality and more.
If ever there was a one-trick-pony, it's the Blackberry. Apart from push e-mail, what do Blackerry devices even do? Java applications.
wow
Other Apple WannabesThere's a plethora of iPhone clones on the market and some of them are pretty decent. Companies like Samsung and even Blackerry are in on the act. But watching these organisations produce their clones makes me feel like I'm watching David Brent do hos special dance - Cringeworthy. They may have merit, but they're selling their product on someone else's.
Apple
The iPhone, apperently, is a revolutionary mobile phone. I still don't see why people say this. The first iPhone was incredibly limited and, apart from the really nice User Interface, had nothing special. The new iPhone is much better, but is still limited in areas where I just don't get the reasoning. For example, still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding. Why!?
You could say that Apple is the opposite of Nokia and Microsoft in that it doesn't (or at least didn't) have much to offer but boy is it good at communicating. Steve Jobs and the Apple machine have a mind-blowing ability to communicate and inspire people who have no Smartphone preconceptions, and open to them a 'new world' of tech innovation - a world that has existed for many since the nineties. Apple has made technology accessible and broken down the 'too much hassle' wall.
The first iPhone was desired by many people but was outside of too many people's wallets (it took me months to save up for one). The new iPhone has rectified this and even brought it to Free on some contracts. This is a big plus and will help make Apple a huge success.
Second, though, is the App Store. Sure, you could (and still can) go to Handango, Symbian Gear and other websites to buy software for your Symbian or Windows Mobile Smartphone, but who knows? Who cares? And those online stores aren't exactly easy to use! Apple, however, have made it easier to buy software for your iPhone than it is to buy pants. In fact, to buy an application for a new iPhone is now exactly as easy as it is to buy a song from the iTunes Music Store. That is something big. Masses of regular, non-geek and non-nerdy people can finally start doing what geeks and nerds have been vainly trying to communicate for almost ten years, and it's Apple that has brought this. The queue outside the O2 store where I live is proof that it's no longer geeks and nerds who want an iPhone, contrary to the opinion of some.
There's still no MMS, still no SMS forwarding, there's no GPS navigation and the camera still sucks. But somehow, Apple has managed to pull the rug from under the feet of its competitors and I wouldn't be suprised if the suits in Microsoft, Nokia et al are still reeling from the swift 1-2 delivered by an Apple who may not yet have the market share, but has a monster chunk of mindshare.
Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Politically Correct Churches Dude
I hate political correctness anyway. I hate the way that if you want to discuss something, you're instantly anti-everything, a bigot and an evil schemer who lives in the past. If you know someone who's a moron and he's disabled, you can't say anything to him about his moronic ways, because if you do, someone will come along and tell you that you're anti equal-opportunities and hate disabled people.
In modern churches, I've found the hot-potato issue of political correctness to have nothing to do with gender, race or political views. It has everything to do with age. Because churches have, in the past, been run by older people, today's modern churches have responded with a knee-jerk and decided that enough is enough and you can't say anything bad about young people.
It's there all the time; you can talk about how old people are out of touch, boring, traditional, in the past and even smelly if you like, but don't you dare say a thing about young people. If someone's young, then they're beyond the reproach of anybody who five years older than them.
Just like organisations need measure their success by the percentage of minorities they have working in them, so do many modern churches measure their success by how many people they have in their leadership. It doesn't matter that they're any good, they're young and that's what matters.
Now, just as I'm not against working with any minority group you can think of, I'm not against young people leading churches. What I am against is appointing people so that things can look like something they're not.
I bought a toy watch for a child's birthday this week. It was modelled on the watch used by Doctor Who to store his Time Lord identity while he lived as a regular Human Being. It's nice. It lights up and makes sounds. But you know something? There's no real Time Lord in the watch, it's pretend. And so it is, churches try and get their quota of young people and sometimes, they completely miss the mark because they follow the simple equation young = right.
For the record, old = right is equally wrong, so don't go calling me all the bigots because I said that not all young people are destined to be cultural ambassadors for the church. But I will say this about the wrinklies, they may be stuck in their ways and maybe even grumpy at times, but they've seen a lot.
In modern churches, I've found the hot-potato issue of political correctness to have nothing to do with gender, race or political views. It has everything to do with age. Because churches have, in the past, been run by older people, today's modern churches have responded with a knee-jerk and decided that enough is enough and you can't say anything bad about young people.
It's there all the time; you can talk about how old people are out of touch, boring, traditional, in the past and even smelly if you like, but don't you dare say a thing about young people. If someone's young, then they're beyond the reproach of anybody who five years older than them.
Just like organisations need measure their success by the percentage of minorities they have working in them, so do many modern churches measure their success by how many people they have in their leadership. It doesn't matter that they're any good, they're young and that's what matters.
Now, just as I'm not against working with any minority group you can think of, I'm not against young people leading churches. What I am against is appointing people so that things can look like something they're not.
I bought a toy watch for a child's birthday this week. It was modelled on the watch used by Doctor Who to store his Time Lord identity while he lived as a regular Human Being. It's nice. It lights up and makes sounds. But you know something? There's no real Time Lord in the watch, it's pretend. And so it is, churches try and get their quota of young people and sometimes, they completely miss the mark because they follow the simple equation young = right.
For the record, old = right is equally wrong, so don't go calling me all the bigots because I said that not all young people are destined to be cultural ambassadors for the church. But I will say this about the wrinklies, they may be stuck in their ways and maybe even grumpy at times, but they've seen a lot.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Facebook and Sexual Humiliation
Facebook's advertisments bother me. They get in the way and I'm sure they're designed to humiliate me every time I see the big text saying '34 and still single?'
It's not enough that it could say '34 and single?', no, it has to say '34 and still single?' - kind of rubbing in what someone (a 'friend' if you will) once said, that I was 'unmarryable' (nice, thank you for that). What then happens is Facebook puts up a photo of a woman who is so out of my league that I'd may as well store up hopes of dating Alyson Hannigan (hmmmmmm......)
But this is the complicated path that one must take when trying to navigate Facebook's options. You see, it started off advertising men. It must have assumed that a 34 year old single guy must be gay. Quite an assumption to make. Think about it, Facebook is assuming that because I'm socially inept, I must be gay? What, are gay men socially inept then? I never thought so. Anyway, I'm not gay. So I decided to tell Facebook that I was interested in women. I don't like that word because it suggests that I'm only on Facebook to try and get some action. If not that, the word interested makes me think of someone who hangs around parks, in bushes, with a big sticky out camera lense. I'm not. So, I put in my profile that I'm interested in women.
If I did! Next thing I know, Facebook has broadcast the news to everyone via my profile. Imagine how cringeworthy it would be to walk into a party and announce that you're single and looking for a partner. That's how I felt. I didn't want it announced to everyone, but such was life.
Facebook stopped offering men to me, but it started to kick in with the humiliating. It was like talking to an Apostolic in the annual convention; How old are you!? And you're still single!? What's the matter with you!? Are you normal!? Do you have a condition!? (apostolics are like that, if you don't fit into the mold (or mould ;-) then you're a bit of a freak with whom nobody should make eye contact)
So, how about I take the advert's advice? Why not meet some single girls on Dating Direct, UK's most popular dating site? I don't think so. First, I couldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member (thank you Woody), but also, I can't get the impression out of my head that all women on these dating sites have retina-burning moustaches and are built like circus strong-men. Christian dating sites are even worse (honest, they do exist and no, you don't want to go there).
My lot means, then, that until the fates direct my path into a collision course, I'll have to live with the humiliation. At least I know that come my next birthday, it'll stop saying 34 and still single? because, naturally, I'll then be 35.
How delightful.
It's not enough that it could say '34 and single?', no, it has to say '34 and still single?' - kind of rubbing in what someone (a 'friend' if you will) once said, that I was 'unmarryable' (nice, thank you for that). What then happens is Facebook puts up a photo of a woman who is so out of my league that I'd may as well store up hopes of dating Alyson Hannigan (hmmmmmm......)
But this is the complicated path that one must take when trying to navigate Facebook's options. You see, it started off advertising men. It must have assumed that a 34 year old single guy must be gay. Quite an assumption to make. Think about it, Facebook is assuming that because I'm socially inept, I must be gay? What, are gay men socially inept then? I never thought so. Anyway, I'm not gay. So I decided to tell Facebook that I was interested in women. I don't like that word because it suggests that I'm only on Facebook to try and get some action. If not that, the word interested makes me think of someone who hangs around parks, in bushes, with a big sticky out camera lense. I'm not. So, I put in my profile that I'm interested in women.
If I did! Next thing I know, Facebook has broadcast the news to everyone via my profile. Imagine how cringeworthy it would be to walk into a party and announce that you're single and looking for a partner. That's how I felt. I didn't want it announced to everyone, but such was life.
Facebook stopped offering men to me, but it started to kick in with the humiliating. It was like talking to an Apostolic in the annual convention; How old are you!? And you're still single!? What's the matter with you!? Are you normal!? Do you have a condition!? (apostolics are like that, if you don't fit into the mold (or mould ;-) then you're a bit of a freak with whom nobody should make eye contact)
So, how about I take the advert's advice? Why not meet some single girls on Dating Direct, UK's most popular dating site? I don't think so. First, I couldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member (thank you Woody), but also, I can't get the impression out of my head that all women on these dating sites have retina-burning moustaches and are built like circus strong-men. Christian dating sites are even worse (honest, they do exist and no, you don't want to go there).
My lot means, then, that until the fates direct my path into a collision course, I'll have to live with the humiliation. At least I know that come my next birthday, it'll stop saying 34 and still single? because, naturally, I'll then be 35.
How delightful.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Where Do The Skinny Retards Come From?
I've been to plenty of weddings. I hate weddings so you could say I've been to too many weddings, but I've been to them. I've also looked at wedding photos and done the usual 'What a lovely day! You sure did have the weather for it! And look at that beautiful dress!' thing as well. It's one of those unwritten rules of society, like the rule that says you shouldn't go shopping barefoot.
But, back to my point. In all the weddings I've ever been to, one thing is common; Skinny retards. They're always there, balloon covered skeletons with handbags just about big enough to hold a lighter. They're always there.
That's the skinny bit. But retards? Yeah, because there doesn't appear to be a person there, only a bodily presence, kind of like a vacuum where there's no thought taking place.
Now, they have as much tight to be in these happy family functions as anybody else, and it's up to them if they want to turn up in practically no clothes whatsoever. Good for them. I don't know them and since I'm not the one getting married, who am I to complain?
But, for all the weddings in which I see these strange beings, I never see them in funerals. Always in weddings, never in funerals. Why is that?
Is this one of those things that makes weddings so expensive? Car, dress, reception, evening do..... and oh! Don't forget to hire the skinny retards!
There's usually at least three per wedding but I must admit, the richer the families getting married, the more skinny retards tend to be present. This suggests they're expensive - can't be the clothes (there's hardly anything to speak of), so maybe it's the makeup. All that foundation which could be used to provide better stability for Japanese buildings has to go cost something.
That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're always at weddings (never one of the bridesmais though - think about it), sometimes at anniversary functions, often at big birthdays but never at funerals. After all, who wants a skinny retard decorating the room with their pouting good looks when you're too upset to stare at her?
But, back to my point. In all the weddings I've ever been to, one thing is common; Skinny retards. They're always there, balloon covered skeletons with handbags just about big enough to hold a lighter. They're always there.
That's the skinny bit. But retards? Yeah, because there doesn't appear to be a person there, only a bodily presence, kind of like a vacuum where there's no thought taking place.
Now, they have as much tight to be in these happy family functions as anybody else, and it's up to them if they want to turn up in practically no clothes whatsoever. Good for them. I don't know them and since I'm not the one getting married, who am I to complain?
But, for all the weddings in which I see these strange beings, I never see them in funerals. Always in weddings, never in funerals. Why is that?
Is this one of those things that makes weddings so expensive? Car, dress, reception, evening do..... and oh! Don't forget to hire the skinny retards!
There's usually at least three per wedding but I must admit, the richer the families getting married, the more skinny retards tend to be present. This suggests they're expensive - can't be the clothes (there's hardly anything to speak of), so maybe it's the makeup. All that foundation which could be used to provide better stability for Japanese buildings has to go cost something.
That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're always at weddings (never one of the bridesmais though - think about it), sometimes at anniversary functions, often at big birthdays but never at funerals. After all, who wants a skinny retard decorating the room with their pouting good looks when you're too upset to stare at her?
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Looking For Life In Stones
I love my dad. He's the best dad I could have ever asked for. He's taught me so many important lessons, I'm grateful for my dad.
My dad is not an astronaut. This isn;t an insult, it's nothing personal and I'm sure he won't mind me telling you that he isn't. He's never been into space.
If I found out that my sister had been going around telling everyone that our dad was an astronaut and that he'd done spacewalks and landed the space shuttle, I'd wonder what's wrong with her and if maybe she'd been smoking something special. This doesn't diminish the fact that I love my dad, this doesn't diminish the fact that my sister is still my sister, it's just that if she went around telling stories like that (which she doesn't), I'd be cringing an awful lot.
This is exactly how I feel when I read this story, about a man who found a picture of Jesus in some granite and wanted to buy it. Jesus has better things to do that draw pictures of our perception of him in bits of stone.
Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated case. People have found pictures of Jesus in tomatoes, crisps (potato chips to our American friends) and garage floors. Oddly, this isn't even limited to Christians since Muslims have celebrated seeing the name of their god in various fruit and vegetables.
But back to this story; why are people always looking for things to validate their beliefs in such crazy ways? Do we really think that finding one little thing that could be something would convince the rest of the world that we have the right belief and they should follow us? Does anybody expect the world's atheists to look at the stone and say "well, if you put it that way, I guess you're right"?
But here's the crunch, we hear news like this almost every day and not always from the religious people. How often have you heard scientists get all excited because they found something in a rock that looks like it could have been a worm from Mars therefore proving that everything they've ever said about GM crops is probably right? How long do they spend looking for stones to show the rest of the world that because there was a seashell on the seashore, riding on the back of a cellphone-savvy dolphin fifteen million years ago, every monotheistic faith must 'clearly' be wrong - simply because they're right (Does it have to follow that because a scientist is right about something, a theist must be wrong)?
I believe in Jesus. Not because I saw His face in a cloud, in a cucumber or on the grain of a piece of wood. Neither is it because there's an ark shaped object up a mountain somewhere and the Turkish government won't let me see it. Neither is it because I have a lucky charm around my neck that protects me. Neither is it because I think He's sending dead relatives to look after me. I believe in Jesus because I have a relationship with Him and that's it.
I supposed, to close this the way I started it, if I'd never met my dad, I wouldn't have any reason to believe anything about him. Sure, he was 'there', but there'd be nothing or nobody in whom to have any kind of belief. But because I know him, I know he's my father and that ongoing relationsip I have with him keeps the whole relationship relevant for me today.
My dad is not an astronaut. This isn;t an insult, it's nothing personal and I'm sure he won't mind me telling you that he isn't. He's never been into space.
If I found out that my sister had been going around telling everyone that our dad was an astronaut and that he'd done spacewalks and landed the space shuttle, I'd wonder what's wrong with her and if maybe she'd been smoking something special. This doesn't diminish the fact that I love my dad, this doesn't diminish the fact that my sister is still my sister, it's just that if she went around telling stories like that (which she doesn't), I'd be cringing an awful lot.
This is exactly how I feel when I read this story, about a man who found a picture of Jesus in some granite and wanted to buy it. Jesus has better things to do that draw pictures of our perception of him in bits of stone.
Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated case. People have found pictures of Jesus in tomatoes, crisps (potato chips to our American friends) and garage floors. Oddly, this isn't even limited to Christians since Muslims have celebrated seeing the name of their god in various fruit and vegetables.
But back to this story; why are people always looking for things to validate their beliefs in such crazy ways? Do we really think that finding one little thing that could be something would convince the rest of the world that we have the right belief and they should follow us? Does anybody expect the world's atheists to look at the stone and say "well, if you put it that way, I guess you're right"?
But here's the crunch, we hear news like this almost every day and not always from the religious people. How often have you heard scientists get all excited because they found something in a rock that looks like it could have been a worm from Mars therefore proving that everything they've ever said about GM crops is probably right? How long do they spend looking for stones to show the rest of the world that because there was a seashell on the seashore, riding on the back of a cellphone-savvy dolphin fifteen million years ago, every monotheistic faith must 'clearly' be wrong - simply because they're right (Does it have to follow that because a scientist is right about something, a theist must be wrong)?
I believe in Jesus. Not because I saw His face in a cloud, in a cucumber or on the grain of a piece of wood. Neither is it because there's an ark shaped object up a mountain somewhere and the Turkish government won't let me see it. Neither is it because I have a lucky charm around my neck that protects me. Neither is it because I think He's sending dead relatives to look after me. I believe in Jesus because I have a relationship with Him and that's it.
I supposed, to close this the way I started it, if I'd never met my dad, I wouldn't have any reason to believe anything about him. Sure, he was 'there', but there'd be nothing or nobody in whom to have any kind of belief. But because I know him, I know he's my father and that ongoing relationsip I have with him keeps the whole relationship relevant for me today.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
The Neck Tie
What is it with the neck tie? Just putting a bit of fabric around your neck and tying it in a pretty knot is all it takes for some people to decide that you're worth talking to. Without a neck tie, you're a nobody, you're someone who can't be serious and you can't be trusted with anything that matters. But put on a neck tie and suddenly, it's all different!
"You're wearing a tie! Hey, come and preach at our church!"
"You're wearing a tie! Hey, you can make decisions!"
Just because someone's wearing a neck tie, it add a certain respectability to them which nothing else can do. It could mean the difference between innocent and guilty in a court of law and would almost certainly mean the difference between getting a job and not getting a job.
You could have degrees popping out of your ass but if you turn up for a job interview in shorts and a T-Shirt, forget about it. Yet, if you're a schmuck in a tie, whether or not you get the job will come down to whether your tie was as nice as the other person's tie. Get a nice tie and get on.
You can get all sorts of ties; black ties, red ties, ties with patterns on, ties with Mickey Mouse on, musical ties.... the list goes on. Yet each and every one of them functions the same way; It sits around your neck and does nothing. Nothing. It just sits there.
You don't need it to hold your shirt together, you don't need it it hold your head on, you don't need it to hang anything from; If it does anything, it's choking you and cutting off the blood supply to your head. How can your brain work properly if you've got something wrapped around your neck?
Who in their right mind would want to have something wrapped around their neck? Yet, if you don't have something wrapped around your neck, you're nothing. You didn't see people suddenly respecting criminals because they had a noose around their neck, but put some shiny blue cloth around there and hey, you can run a country.
How stupid is that!?
The world doesn't have a bigger putz than Ahmed Ahmedinejad, but even he's not so stupid as to think you have to wear a tie. Sure, he may have over stepped the mark by banning them (you allow for people to be stupid if they want), but if he can see that ties are stupid, why can't you?
There are people who will tut and shake their heads at me because I don't understand how respectable society works and how I just don't 'get' it, but what are you on about? Would you think I was any less stupid if I changed my mind and started wearing a tie from tomorrow? Would you think I was a little more righteous if I came to church on Sunday wearing a tie?
Even some modern churches say that you should wear a tie. Have you ever asked why you should wear a tie to church? Did Jesus wear a tie? Did Jesus even wear a culturally similar ornament on His person? They'll tell you to wear a tie to church because it shows respect. How on this blessed blue pearl as it wings its way around Sol is it any more respectable than someone who isn't wearing a tie!?
If you're going to come to my funeral, ties are banned and trainers are compulsory else you can't have any after-cremation snacks, okay?
What thought processes would have to take place for someone to decide to start wearing a neck tie anyway? What conclusion, other than conformity, would someone have to come to before deciding that a neck tie was for them?
Everything else a person wears does something, but a tie does nothing apart from making you look at least as good as the other person who's also wearing a tie. But the fact remains, it does nothing.
"You're wearing a tie! Hey, come and preach at our church!"
"You're wearing a tie! Hey, you can make decisions!"
Just because someone's wearing a neck tie, it add a certain respectability to them which nothing else can do. It could mean the difference between innocent and guilty in a court of law and would almost certainly mean the difference between getting a job and not getting a job.
You could have degrees popping out of your ass but if you turn up for a job interview in shorts and a T-Shirt, forget about it. Yet, if you're a schmuck in a tie, whether or not you get the job will come down to whether your tie was as nice as the other person's tie. Get a nice tie and get on.
You can get all sorts of ties; black ties, red ties, ties with patterns on, ties with Mickey Mouse on, musical ties.... the list goes on. Yet each and every one of them functions the same way; It sits around your neck and does nothing. Nothing. It just sits there.
You don't need it to hold your shirt together, you don't need it it hold your head on, you don't need it to hang anything from; If it does anything, it's choking you and cutting off the blood supply to your head. How can your brain work properly if you've got something wrapped around your neck?
Who in their right mind would want to have something wrapped around their neck? Yet, if you don't have something wrapped around your neck, you're nothing. You didn't see people suddenly respecting criminals because they had a noose around their neck, but put some shiny blue cloth around there and hey, you can run a country.
How stupid is that!?
The world doesn't have a bigger putz than Ahmed Ahmedinejad, but even he's not so stupid as to think you have to wear a tie. Sure, he may have over stepped the mark by banning them (you allow for people to be stupid if they want), but if he can see that ties are stupid, why can't you?
There are people who will tut and shake their heads at me because I don't understand how respectable society works and how I just don't 'get' it, but what are you on about? Would you think I was any less stupid if I changed my mind and started wearing a tie from tomorrow? Would you think I was a little more righteous if I came to church on Sunday wearing a tie?
Even some modern churches say that you should wear a tie. Have you ever asked why you should wear a tie to church? Did Jesus wear a tie? Did Jesus even wear a culturally similar ornament on His person? They'll tell you to wear a tie to church because it shows respect. How on this blessed blue pearl as it wings its way around Sol is it any more respectable than someone who isn't wearing a tie!?
If you're going to come to my funeral, ties are banned and trainers are compulsory else you can't have any after-cremation snacks, okay?
What thought processes would have to take place for someone to decide to start wearing a neck tie anyway? What conclusion, other than conformity, would someone have to come to before deciding that a neck tie was for them?
Everything else a person wears does something, but a tie does nothing apart from making you look at least as good as the other person who's also wearing a tie. But the fact remains, it does nothing.
Plastic Clothes Hangers
I've got more plastic clothes hangers than I have hangable clothes. How did that happen? At what point did the clothes/hanger ratio flip in favour of the hangers? Who needs that many clothes hangers anyway?
I've only got a bee in my hat over this because these hangers, which are breeding like triffids, are piling up. No matter how many I put away or throw away, more appear and when they fall, they make the most horrendous noise! I swear to you, if I went a visited the bowels of hell today, I'd find vast mountain ranges, all made up with plastic clothes hangers and there's be enormous clothes hanger avalanches piling down the clothes hanger hills.
They bother me and they frighten me. Maybe the energy of the fall opens up a rift in the space where more plastic hangers can pop in from another universe or something? That would explain why I hate them - antimatter. Plastic clothes hangers are made up of antimatter.
I've only got a bee in my hat over this because these hangers, which are breeding like triffids, are piling up. No matter how many I put away or throw away, more appear and when they fall, they make the most horrendous noise! I swear to you, if I went a visited the bowels of hell today, I'd find vast mountain ranges, all made up with plastic clothes hangers and there's be enormous clothes hanger avalanches piling down the clothes hanger hills.
They bother me and they frighten me. Maybe the energy of the fall opens up a rift in the space where more plastic hangers can pop in from another universe or something? That would explain why I hate them - antimatter. Plastic clothes hangers are made up of antimatter.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Text Message Terrorists
(from my blog at rcopeh.blogspot.com)
There's a certain kind of terrorist who I'm sure we all know; It's the text message terrorist, the person who will drop a text, maybe two and then vanish until the next 'bomb' (boy are the CIA computers going to want to read this this post! Any keywords missing?)
The goal of the text message terrorist is to make you feel like trash and this is because you felt Ok and that is not allowed. This is how it goes; I get a text saying "Hi! How r u?" and you know what? That sounds pretty, pretty cheerful to me. So I reply with "I'm great thanks! What a stunning day! How are you?" to which I get the reply "I feel like crap. My life sucks and I hate myself. Glad ur havin a gud day". Being the caring friend, I may text back with some support or to ask if I can help, but no reply. I'll call, but no pickup.
Another example is the text which starts "Hi! How r u?" to which I reply with the same cheer and asking how they are and..... no reply. I often get a string of these where people want to know how I am and what I'm doing but won't tell me anything about themselves. Sometimes, I get wise to this and when I'm asked how I am, I reply "Great to hear from you. How are you?" to which a reply (if there is one) will be "so, ur nt goin 2 answer my q. Fine." So I end up feeding them a little information, just so that they don't feel I don't trust them, and I get no reply.
What is it with these people? What kind of human being asks how someone is but doesn't reply when they're asked the same by the person they just asked!? It's like they think they're more important or something so it's right that they should know what goes on in my simple life but I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend what goes on in their super-secret, MI5 lives?
If they could send messages in English, it'd help but these a dumb schmucks who act like they want me to walk around with a cloud, worrying that such'n'such is Ok. And you know what? I will (to a point) worry. That's what being a friend is about!
However, the bestest ever is the kind that plays out like a soap opera. What happens is that you become a support for someone. Maybe they're feeling lonely, down or just plain euch. It happens, we all go through it. However, once they're out, they're there teaching and preaching about how you're such a schmuck for thinking that they're the kind of person who could think in the context of such mind-numbing negativity. No, they weren't depressed, you were! What were you thinking! Listen to their advice! They know all about you and will direct you through every intricate detail of your life. They may even approve of some of the things you've done or thought of doing! How about that!? And now that you have the assurance that they're telling their friends about what kind of farbisener you are (despite putting up with their text terrorism), you can be sure of having knowing glances, nods and smirks from each and every single pashkudenyak there.
Because I'm a soft-hearted idiot, I let this happen to me a number of times before I figure that there's probably more to life than listening to people who are only going to preach back at me like some sort of mishugena. If I want that kind of interaction, I'll play with Robosapien V2 - at least that one speaks English.
Some of you who think you know me may be trying to work out who I'm talking about. Don't worry, you don't know these putzes, and I'm not talking about you. I know I can trust you. That's why I like you.
Thank you for reading.
There's a certain kind of terrorist who I'm sure we all know; It's the text message terrorist, the person who will drop a text, maybe two and then vanish until the next 'bomb' (boy are the CIA computers going to want to read this this post! Any keywords missing?)
The goal of the text message terrorist is to make you feel like trash and this is because you felt Ok and that is not allowed. This is how it goes; I get a text saying "Hi! How r u?" and you know what? That sounds pretty, pretty cheerful to me. So I reply with "I'm great thanks! What a stunning day! How are you?" to which I get the reply "I feel like crap. My life sucks and I hate myself. Glad ur havin a gud day". Being the caring friend, I may text back with some support or to ask if I can help, but no reply. I'll call, but no pickup.
Another example is the text which starts "Hi! How r u?" to which I reply with the same cheer and asking how they are and..... no reply. I often get a string of these where people want to know how I am and what I'm doing but won't tell me anything about themselves. Sometimes, I get wise to this and when I'm asked how I am, I reply "Great to hear from you. How are you?" to which a reply (if there is one) will be "so, ur nt goin 2 answer my q. Fine." So I end up feeding them a little information, just so that they don't feel I don't trust them, and I get no reply.
What is it with these people? What kind of human being asks how someone is but doesn't reply when they're asked the same by the person they just asked!? It's like they think they're more important or something so it's right that they should know what goes on in my simple life but I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend what goes on in their super-secret, MI5 lives?
If they could send messages in English, it'd help but these a dumb schmucks who act like they want me to walk around with a cloud, worrying that such'n'such is Ok. And you know what? I will (to a point) worry. That's what being a friend is about!
However, the bestest ever is the kind that plays out like a soap opera. What happens is that you become a support for someone. Maybe they're feeling lonely, down or just plain euch. It happens, we all go through it. However, once they're out, they're there teaching and preaching about how you're such a schmuck for thinking that they're the kind of person who could think in the context of such mind-numbing negativity. No, they weren't depressed, you were! What were you thinking! Listen to their advice! They know all about you and will direct you through every intricate detail of your life. They may even approve of some of the things you've done or thought of doing! How about that!? And now that you have the assurance that they're telling their friends about what kind of farbisener you are (despite putting up with their text terrorism), you can be sure of having knowing glances, nods and smirks from each and every single pashkudenyak there.
Because I'm a soft-hearted idiot, I let this happen to me a number of times before I figure that there's probably more to life than listening to people who are only going to preach back at me like some sort of mishugena. If I want that kind of interaction, I'll play with Robosapien V2 - at least that one speaks English.
Some of you who think you know me may be trying to work out who I'm talking about. Don't worry, you don't know these putzes, and I'm not talking about you. I know I can trust you. That's why I like you.
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Should He Be Allowed to DriveHere?
Looking at a blog post by one Jacek "Edward" Rutkowski ( see http://ejr44.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-am-deep-in-england-now.html), I wonder not at how we allow so many foreigners into the country (that's cool), but why we allow them to drive if they haven't shown any competence. Here's what this gentleman has to say about driving in the UK;
"driving in UK is a bit strange: the priority has always the one coming from the left, not right like on the continent but what if you try to enter round-about? Then people on the round-about have always higher priority than you who is entering round-about even though technically people on the round-about are on the left side, or how it is? I must learn it some time..."
Yes, maybe you should, like, y'know, learn it before you even start to drive around here and kill someone?
Does this worry you? How do you feel about sharing the road with people who don't know if they've quite understood how the whole 'road thing' works?
Monday, 19 May 2008
The Itsy-Bitsy Schmucks
(from my blog at rcopeh.blogspot.com)
They're normal people; they go to the toilet, they go to the store, they even go to the office or the factory and earn an honest living. But just get on the wrong end of one of these and you're going to find yourself having a rough time, if you let yourself care.
Because these are the idiots who keep wanting to make you feel stupid and look stupid because it makes them feel cleverer and look cleverer. The more stupid they make you feel, the greater they feel and so it goes on. If you ever meet one of these guys, try not to meet them again. I'm glad I don't meet many, but when I do, I want to vomit.
What kind of human being wants to make another human being feel like crap just so that they can feel like a king or a queen? I'll tell you; a little human being. Think about it; if you're so small and stupid that they keep wanting to show you how small and stupid you are, then what kind of achievement is it for them in being better than a small and stupid person?
Let's face it, if someone needs to give you *that* *much* *attention* just to make themselves feel big, then you're not the stupid putz you're being told you are. You don't need anyone to feel stupid in order to be happy while the schmuck across the road does. What does that say? It says that you're better than them. That's what it says.
If I beat up a five year old girl, is that something to be proud of? Of course not, I should be ashamed (I don't go beating up kids, don't worry), but if I can get into a fight with the likes of Joe Calzaghe and still be alive at the end of it, then I've achieved something.
If someone keeps putting you down so that they can measure up better than you, then smile because they're the little ones, they're the itsy-bitsy schmucks who need little victories over someone better than them (you) in order to survive.
Bullies bully you because they need to. You survive because you choose to.
Simple.
Friday, 16 May 2008
Feelgood and Feelbad Churches
(from my blog at rcopeh.blogspot.com)
The struggle is that the two extremes which I have seen don't make much sense when I read what about Christianity says about itself in the Bible. I think it's probably best if I just describe the churches to you and if you want to comment and/or help me understand, comment below.
The extremes appear to be goals of the churches that are in between. They see these as a desired outcome, an ideal. Now, I'm not saying that either of these extremes is wrong, I'm only explaining my problem with them.
The two types are (to put them in my flippant terms); The Feelgood Church and The Feelbad Church.
The Feelgood Church
This kind of church seems to be the most fun but also the most lacking in any substance. The songs are lively and exciting but have bland and pointless lyrics, the preaching is nice and friendly but pointless.
These churches seem to be embarrassed by the Bible and preach sermons that make me leave wondering why anybody would want to be a Christian anyway since the rest of the world seems to be offering everything that preacher just told me I could have there. They never seem to tell people why Jesus died apart from the idea that Jesus can make you feel nice about yourself. They never mention sin, they never mention righteousness but they put a big emphasis on being culturally relevant which inevitably translates into being American (nothing wrong with Americans by the way :-).
Why would someone need Jesus to make them feel nice if they already feel nice?
In my opinion, this kind of church has plenty of heart but no strength, no unique selling point and no spiritual purpose.
If, as I believe, eternal life has already started at the moment of the second birth, and this present life is just a taste of what's to come, why does it have to be so mind-numbingly shallow and disengaging with reality, all the time?
The Feelbad Church
The complete antithesis of the above is this kind of church where if you don't read at least five chapters of the Bible a day, usually at the most inconvenient time possible, sitting on a scissors and with one eye closed, then you're somehow failing.
While the Feelgood church never mentions sin and the need for salvation, the Feelbad church puts a huge emphasis on the problem (sin), a rather big emphasis on the solution (Christ) but little-to-no mention of the benefits apart from the painfully righteous feeling that will follow you around like an old granny who thinks it's disrespectful to fart in church.
The sermons seem to be about a God who never quite satisfies because the more miserable the pain and disquiet in your soul, the holier you obviously are. Because God has so much to give us and show us in His great truth (no sarcasm there, I actually believe this), the more unhappy we should be (I don't believe this bit).
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of joy when I visit these churches. For these, life seems to be one big spaced out sequence of unsatisfying events linked by regular moments of pain and self loathing to the point of self flagellation.
If, as I believe, eternal life has already started at the moment of the second birth, and this present life is just a taste of what's to come, why does it have to be so miserable all the time?
Help!
And so I'm stuck in the middle, unable to fit anywhere because I can't get my head around the extremes.
My testimony is of an experience with Jesus who showed to me my sin and washed it away. He is still working with me because I'm still not perfect and I know that there's a whole lot more to Him than what I know. I believe that prayer, reading the Bible and meditation on it is the best recipe for understanding Him and His purposes. But if this is relationship, then why would I go looking for exclusive ways to be shallow (a la the Feelgood church) or for ways to make myself feel as rotten as possible (a la the Feelbad church)?
I don't see happy married couples acting in this way. I don't see happy married couples trying to show each other how unworthy one feels in the presence of the other, all the time feeling unsatisfied because they're so crap. Neither do I see happy married couples treating each other like they're just a bit a laugh and nothing more. Happy married couples seem, to me (from a single person's standpoint) to enjoy each other, respect each other and take the rough with the smooth.
Maybe it's to do with control. The Feelgood church encourages the music-centric, worked up kind of worship that can often result in people going all shaky and falling on the ground in uncontrollably writhing 'pleasure'. The Feelbad church encourages giving the kind of control to God that leaves no independent thought at all (the pastor often becomes a dictator with whom you dare not disagree on any issue) and completely disengages the believer from any form of interaction with the physical world (kind of like the gnostics who believed that anything of flesh is inherently evil, therefore Jesus wasn't a flesh-and-blood Man). Both of these seem to miss that point that God has given His followers a Spirit of Self Control (something I struggle with, especially when it comes to chocolate). Nobody in these churches seems to want to have any control over their lives, forgetting that God gave kings to Israel who controlled the nation, and just like kings, there is good self-control and bad self-control.
Come to think of it, that last paragraph could be the biggest red herring since Red Rodney, the reddest herring in the Thames, caught a sun tan.
Such is my alienation from these 'enlightened' points of experience, I expect to be called a heretic or irrelevant to this generation. Paradoxically, I could even find myself being called shallow and 'puritan'. Others will feel sorry for me and try to explain how stupid I am while 'caring' for me in a 'I know best what Jesus wants for you' kind of way.
However, if you have any thoughts (even ones designed to make me feel unworthy of breath), let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
