Things To Do In Bristol When You're (OCD)ead: Rant

D-Day - some still remember...

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:28:08 GMT

Though, it seems, not many.

Most of the time on here is spent with me moaning about my own sh*t (after 3 weeks of retriggering am coming out of the spell again, very slowly), but today is one of those days where other stuff should really come first.

You see, today is the 64th anniversary of D-Day. A day when none of us should be above taking a minute to remember the sacrifices others made in order for us to be who we are, many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice to give people freedom which (had they not done so) could easily have been unheard of today. Members of my family fought in both of the great wars - one was held prisoner by the japanese in WW2, another fought at the Somne and eventually died of his injuries there. We're not a military family or anything, but respect is due to them all from us all.

So...where are the things commemorating D-Day today? One national newspaper gives it high billing...aside from that - not a thing. Nothing on national radio, nothing on TV news at all. Indeed, apart from someone on Talksport bringing it up, I've seen/heard no coverage whatsoever. No mention of it in parliament at all, no perfunctory words @ PMQs yesterday, no rememberance in the European parliament today.

It's a disgrace that, because there's not a nice anniversarial number involved, the day is seemingly forgotten entirely (when even BBC4 can't make room for it, there are problems). Am hoping that regular reader Rob will say that ventures etc are doing something for it on Sunday, perhaps.

Comic Relief introduces reverse psychology

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:08:44 GMT

How fiendish is that?

There've been some bad charity records in the past but this morning I had the excrutiating misfortune to hear the cover of 'Walk This Way' (the old Aerosmith and, more famously, Aerosmith vs Run DMC rock/hiphop classic) by Girls Aloud and the Sugababes.

Dear God, it's hideous. I mean ear-bleedingly bad, an aural emodiment of the things that inevitably drove all Lovecraft's protaganists insane with just a mere glimpse of them. It could inspire burbling violence.

I can only think that, nearer the date, there's some plan to raise millions of pounds by getting listeners to donate money to radio and TV stations in order to stop them playing it - people will be queuing up to make bank withdrawals in order to do so.

I urge everybody now to make their way to any planned live performances of said track armed with whatever rotten fruit you can find to pelt the performers with.

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: D

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:12:27 GMT

D is for Drivers

Cars, buses, lorries...you name 'em - all are included within this one.

My father hasn't given me much decent advice, but he gave me one piece when I passed my test about 14 years ago that was spot on: treat every other person on the road like a complete and utter f*cking idiot, capable of doing anything at anytime regardless of their current behaviour or signalling (or lack of).

See, I haven't got a problem with driving. I love it - a nice drive can chill me out no end. Unless, of course, you come across the following:

The bus driver who thinks a sign on the back of his vehicle saying 'give me right of way' entitles him to just pull out in front of you at any time, an airy wave of a nicotine-stained hand in thanks somehow dispelling the fact that you've nearly tail-ended him, been tail-ended yourself and often been left occupying a space in the opposite lane as a result. Oh, and at the end of a route they can just abandon that puppy anywhere, stacking them up in multiple chicanes.
Mr White Van Driver, clearly needing a hand with his 60 drops in an hour by trying to park up in the boot of your car and get a lift - and then getting frustrated with you because you're not going 10-15 miles over the speed limit of 30.
The taxi driver. Often in a Nissan or a Ford Mondeo and especially prevalent at night, lane markings are for other people. Want to take the fifth exit on a roundabout, the one furthest right? Just get in the far left hand line and put your foot down, you'll make it, it's a short cut! Also a subscriber to the WVD's policy of 'the safest place on the road is in the boot of the car infront' POV.
Old people. The really old ones - you know the sort. The ones who can barely see over the dashboard, who take 15 minutes before pulling away, mostly spent trying to remember where they are and how they got in the car to start with. The ones who are so cautious that you barely crawl over 20 miles an hour but then suddenly get a rush of blood to the head, do something really stupid and, by the time they've reacted to it, are already sat up in hospital waiting for another hip.
Middle lane motorway drivers. One of the biggest crimes. Somehow, sitting in the middle and doing a steady 45-50, they think they must be safe. The fast lane gives them palpatations, the slow lane is too close to the grass verge. No, we'll just trundle along here, thanks. Why's that person flashing his lights behind me, he can pass me on either side, there's plenty of room?!
Motorway wagons. Now, there's a proviso here - if I was in an 18+ wheeler then I'd probably not give a sh*t either. But I'm not so, when one of these behemoths decides to, not so much to pull out entirely, but just do that swaying halfway across the adjoining lane and back again then I get a little nervous.
Not strictly drivers but, hell, ANYONE on a 2-wheeled vehicle. Mostly cyclists, for whom the laws and courtesies of the road happen to other people and then, after they've caused an accident or near-accident to a motorist or pedestrian, stand there pleading innocence and how it can't have been them because they don't pollute the environment. When, in actual fact, they're the main cause of many other people turning the air blue. Each bike should be sold with a bullseye target painted on it - just so we all know where we stand.

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: C

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:39:05 GMT

C is for Can Openers

This may be a Matty-specific problem, admittedly - but why is it that an invention that has been around since someone found a pointy rock and invented tin is impossible to recreate using modern technology without it repeatedly breaking. We have f*cking dozens of the things in this house and yet, despite this, only one ever works - and that's the same one that worked when we bought it about 9 years ago!

I mean, it's not a difficult bloody concept, is it? And its clear that they get it right for a few seconds because they always manage to go round the tin for about half a twist before popping out of the top again, leaving you after 5-10 minutes with, not an open tin lid, but one punctured in about 15-20 places that looks like you've taken a pickaxe to it. And still no food. And a headache and some major anger issues.

And yet, despite all of this, buying an electric one still seems like an extravagence and a bit of a crappy waste of money.

They must be making MILLIONS out of them.

Bastards.

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: B

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:36:33 GMT

B is for Babies

Possibly the best example of the phrase 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to feign interest whenever friends of mine start parading their child around and using lines like 'oooo, he's/she's (it's) lovely)', 'looks just like his/her (its) Mum/Dad/the bloke from the newsagent' and the like.

No they don't. Until about 2 years old they all look the same - pudgy, mewling fleshballs with a John Prescot countenance, a tendancy to leak with no regard for others and over-developed lungs. Stop this illusory idea that they have a clue what's going on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm happy for those people who've contributed to the human gene pool and the joy they clearly get from it, but just lack the ability to turn into some wide-eyed, idiocy-burbling deficient completely removed from reality that seems the general state for many new parents. To me, kids are of no interest until they're old enough to play pranks on for my own amusement.

(OCD Update - briefly, all still seems ok. Even fought off a few trigger moments, so something is working :) )

T2Ds A-Z of things that annoy: A

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:40 GMT

A is for Asses (or arses, if you want the English vernacular).

In particular, male ones.

Most of this is down to the adverts on television. Specifically, the black and white one for aftershave or sofa sales or something (though I doubt that it's the latter - advertising seating by implying someone elses bare ass-crack may have been on the cushion first may well put people off) with the 'style on skin' whispering voiceover.

Now, fair enough - he's not offensively ugly so the women are gonna like him, and he's in decent shape so there's probably an element of envy there from someone whose butt-cheeks seem molded in jelly. But (and I suspect it'd make me cringe even without my OCD issues), at anytime during the day?? After the watershed, fine, buttock it up to your heart's content. But at 2 in the afternoon it's just uncalled for.

Yes, if there was parity then it'd be copeable - but I've never seen a nicely rounded ladies posterior on national TV anytime before 9pm and I suspect there'd be an outcry of there was. So either get the ladies asses on or don't show them at all. I mean, for gods sake, it doesn't half put you off your stroke when you're watching a mid-afternoon baywatch repeat and his ugly ass pops up.

Metaphorically speaking, of course *ahem*.

RANT WARNING 4 Days 'til Boxing day - GOOD! Plus a personal address...

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:09:01 GMT

I am sick and bloody fed up of Christmas.

Yes - I admit that i'm not in a good mood right now and, of course, tomorrow (or even later today) I may feel completely different. But at the moment...

...you can stick all the false happiness, forced cheerfulness and fake jolly camaraderie in your stocking and shove it way up somewhere that'll make your nose turn as red as Rudolph the Made-up Reindeer (and kiddies, if you want to see Rudolph, stop watching the skies on Xmas Eve and look in a tin of imported meat from Scandanavia).

"Wow, it's Christmas - isn't it great!!??" - no, it's not great, it's rubbish! Come on, how many of you REALLY feel 'ok' or 'not bad' or pretty good' when someone asks how you are?? And at Xmas, you HAVE to say that or more or you'll be spoiling the 'Christmas' spirit.

Well, f*ck your Christmas spirit and f*ck conforming to the way we're supposed to feel and act during it. Do you think it's really some magical time when everyone links hand and drinks mulled wine? No. A kid being abused by someone doesn't have a day off on Xmas day, a homeless person doesn't wake up to presents under a tree on Xmas morning, soldiers abroad don't stop getting shot, lonely people don't feel less alone, sick people don't feel less sick - and yet it seems saying anything like that is pissing in the cups of the plum pudding-flavoured festive brandy somewhat.

Bottom line - Christmas and the whole idea of 'Christmas spirit' really exists for those people without issues of that kind and to use to hush up those people who have. If your alone or afflicted in any way at all - stay indoors. Playing me a carol or saying 'get in the spirit of things' is not going to have some Christ-like resurrective power on mine, or anyone elses, ability to have fun and not feel whatever we really feel. If people don't like that, do us all a favour - when you talk to us, don't sweep whatever our problem is under the carpet to make yourself feel better and don't belittle it by using any of the above approaches and don't try and make people feel guilty for not participating - if you can't deal with that, don't even try.

And yes, the kids are the one exception - for them it's different, the wonder is still there without the world dragging it all down - but only for them.

Oh, and a quick message for the Christian community whose palms are undoubtedly itching to make the sign of the crucifix and inform me that what I seek is the 'true, uncorrupted religious significance of Xmas' - been there, tried that, thanks but no thanks. Your church is the religious equivalent of all the cheery xmas songs, carols and attitude, often inhabited by people whose answer to anything outside the sphere of their sheltered existence is to hide behind their guide book (or Bible or whatever), write it off as sin and refuse to think about it and mouth the windy platitude of 'believe in God and everything'll be fine'. Yep, very constructive - thank you.

*sigh* I dunno - I mean, do I really MEAN most of the above. Yeah, probably (though I'll admit that my mode of adress may be a little blunt in this mood). I guess I'm just asking everyone, whoever they are and whoever they are with, to remember that Xmas for everyone isn't just a big funfest - and rather then try to force them to participate, show some understanding and tolerance for why they don't as, often, it's not because they don't want to - it's because, for whatever reason, they can't. And for people like that, this holiday season can actually be hellish and is all about just getting through it.

Do I feel like that? Not constantly, but sometimes - when these downswings in mood hit I guess, especially when i'm just so damn mentally tired through fighting it for 6-8 weeks solid now. Tesco's this morning (had to be done to help Mum) nearl;y saw me, 3/4 of the way round, walk away from the trolley saying 'what's the point of all this?' - was a millisecond away from doing it. oh, and a tip to any supermarkets - how about catering for diabetics with your products a bit more? No wonder kids health is a big problem as sugar-free, fat-free alternatives for things are few and far between. And yes, my first diabetic Xmas is not something I look forward to either...

That's nearly rant over. Apart from one more thing which has been bugging me for a while........

I'm aware of some of my friends who read this and suspect others may do who know me that I don't know about, people I've not heard from in a while. If so, this is a message to someone that needs saying - and you will probably know who you are.

One of you seems to have been sucked so far into their religious lifestyle that they're pretty much shunning those people they used to be friends with whose spiritual path has led them in a different direction - this person has responsibilities and we understand that, but a call, email or text message takes no time at all. From where I'm stood, I feel I've been judged, found wanting, shunned and treated like someone dangerous to be around because of my beliefs/lack of them. I know that person is a better person then that - at least, they used to be - and am sad and upset to be treated that way, and to find that their value of friendship is based on a sliding scale of who is the most 'Christian'. I hope I'm wrong and that person, should they read this, will prove me wrong - that my only communication from someone I was close to in a pretty turbulent year for me was a Christmas card...well, that's not good.

More then enough said.

Fck off you anl deficient

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:48:20 GMT

You see, a title like that always grabs people's attention.

I know it's hard to believe of someone who has campaigned on this site for hostage Norman Kember to be sent back to his captors, for the removal of public safety campaigns, for the active promotion of underage smoking and designed a questionaire that was hostile towards disabled children awards - but sometimes I feel I hold back a little too much for my own good.

Maybe it'd help my anxiety disorder if I didn't but, hey, I don't like offending individual people.

I don't mind offending representative groups of people or upsetting repressed minorities (often through the use of humour), but there are times when I hold back what I really think because I don't want to upset someone.

Like this morning.

Someone I've never met before leaves me a msg on Flixster, the film review website, re a question I wrote for their quiz about 'Jaws'. Apparently I'd used the word "We're" instead of "You're" when quoting from the film, and the man felt it his duty to inform me how he'd seen the question twice (so I must have entered it twice, rather then the quiz repeat the question - it'd NEVER do that (duh)) and it had been wrong BOTH times! Below is the reason why I may be slightly repressing my emotions - this is what I typed in and deleted at the last second before hitting reply:

Look...quite simply, f*ck off.

Has the world stopped turning? No. Have I wiped out a small country? No. Have I inadvertently p*ssed on the faces of your parents? No. It's a f*cking quiz question on an online game that thousands of people manage to play without taking it so intensely seriously. It is not real life. Take your head out of your f*cking as and stop being so f*cking anal. "and you quoted it wrong TWICE!!!"...*waa waa waa* and watch me slowly w*nk myself stupid with glee about the fact that's it's managed to annoy someone as f*cking retentive as yourself.

Y'see, someone just pointing it out during the course of conversation - a friend or colleague - fair enough. making an error like that? Not too bothered, easily done. But to make a special point of actually tracking the person down about something so incredibly inconsequential and trying to sound like a superior being whilst doing so? That attitude simply f*cks me off. Yet at the same time I feel intense pity for you, in that you clearly play this quiz incessantly whilst fingering yourself in the ass for 20 hours a day. That's no life for a man.

Anyway, I shall now make it my mission to bombard the quiz with 100s of questions that have one small, insignificant detail wrong about them, content in the knowledge that every time I do there's a chance of you spasming in shock and being admitted to hospital with a finger locked in your rectum.

Even now there's a part of me that wishes I'd sent it. I am obviously repressed.

Bl*ody MSN...

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:13:28 GMT

It may LOOK nice folks, but this new enforced layout/design change by MSN Spaces has been a bitch to sort out and get the blog back to vague presentability again (I'd say respectability but we all know that's never gonna happen on this space).

Anyway, we're now sorted with a new address (thanks for letting us users know before it changed, MSN (not)) and so have updated the site with a few new banners and a new tagline - may well change that on a regular basis for some fun.

Was intending to get both some updated film/TV news and the much-delayed single reviews up this morning but the site tweaking has meant i haven't - will try and get 'em up ASAP.

Matty

P.S. Don't blame me if it's slow loading up - that appears to be another new feature. Along with the 'Latest news' feature being so buggy that I've dropped it for the moment. As well-tested as every other Windows product, then.

Idiocy, Thy Name is Chris Adams - Cycle-riding idiot

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:39:55 GMT

You may already have heard of this guy - if not, allow me to enlighten you...

This is the Bristolian caught bang-to-rights by a policeman riding through a red light early on his pushbike early one weekday morning...a policeman who, miraculously, proceeded to do exactly what 99% of the population hope for but seldom believe will happen in giving Mr Adams a fixed penalty fine for doing so.

Now even the bike riders amongst you all must admit that doing it right in front of a copper is a dumbass move - and that you'd have to say 'fair do's' and take your medicine.

But no. Mr Adams not only appealed against the ticket, but is now moaning about the police wasting public money in pursuing the fine rather then giving in to the appeal and dropping it!!

Sir - are you deficient in some way???

A red light is a red light. It doesn't matter WHAT is or isn't on the road at 4:30am in the morning, whether it's busy or deserted. When i'm in a car, if I go through a red light in front of a policeman then I'm going to get fined - and there's not a car driver in the country who'd even think of arguing. Why on earth should it be any different for you? If you're on the road, you should be governed by the rules of the road. Simple as, end of. What breathtaking arrogance to appeal against it, let alone to complain about the appeal being contested.

When you think of the sheer weight of road abuses bike riders get away with on a daily basis throughout the country, this was bound to happen sooner or later - and I, for one, hope that the police don't back down on this. Too many times I here people on bikes have a go at car drivers whenever we dare criticise them - well, tough shit. Car drivers are no angels, I freely admit, but in what way does that excuse you lot? It doesn't.

So perhaps the next time Mr Adams and his fellow 2-wheeled incompetents decide to ride through red lights, mount and dismount the pavement as they see fit to avoid traffic, road markings and queues, ignore people on zebra and pelican crossings, ride 2/3/4 abreast with their fellow deficients or weave in and out of traffic then they may think twice - this time someone might actually catch them doing it and punish them.

Oh, but don't stop my favourite trick of yours - the "big traffic queue so lets ride down the opposite side of the road into oncoming traffic to get past it' one - as, sooner or later, I'll score some BIG points in that little game of chicken.

Honk honk.

Just how thick must you be to need a 'Level Crossing' safety ad?

Wed, 31 May 2006 14:46:09 GMT

Have noticed on the TV and especially on the radio over the past few weeks that the Govt have decided to spend our taxes (well, your taxes - I'm still sponging off you as a sick boy) on a new safety campaign.

Speeding in cars - fair enough. Be careful of electricity - no problem. Don't drown - good advice. All such campaigns I don't have much problem with...

...but...

Just how stupid do you really have to be to need a warning about getting stuck on level crossings? I mean, really - I just don't get it. It's not as though you don't know what they are by the time you hit driving age, is it? If you've miraculously fluked your way through life for 17+ years and then come across one, surely the big red & white striped STOP gates and the flashing lights surrounding signs saying 'STOP! Level crossing' would be enough to make you realise that you should probably stop. Perhaps even the enormous, crappily drawn depiction of a train in a red triangle nearby might give you a clue as to what's coming should you need anymore advice on the matter...

Yet despite this, millions has still gone on a campaign telling people to stop or risk getting hit by a train. Adding helpfully that being hit by a train will kill you. Just in case there were any doubts. What a total waste of money - aim such ads at kids on train tracks by all means, but aiming them at road users as if they've picked some unrecognisable barrier to play chicken across? Dumb.

Again, we're in 'let stupid people die' territory here - the government need to stop curtailing this occasionally hilarious form of natural selection by overplaying the warnings too much, and save the tax money to spend on the things us less-stupid individuals will appreciate - whilst slowly allowing a natural solution to overcrowding do its work.

Let's face it, if you really are dumb enough to chance sneaking thru a level crossing then you have a fair idea what to expect if you get stuck. In my view, it's a case of 'bad call, brother!', a cheery *honk honk* on that train whistle and a swift *crunch*. One less idiot, nature exhales and moves on.

Just an opinion.

63 yr old Mum-to-be? If God meant pensioners to be sexually attractive...

Thu, 04 May 2006 22:02:33 GMT

...then he wouldn't make them smell of cats and old wee.

Anyway, I digress...

Her name is Patricia Rashbrook...

She's a 63 year-old child psychologist, mother of two grown-up kids from her first marriage, and now married to a 61 year-old...

...and in two months she'll be giving birth to a newborn baby after having IBF treatment in an 'unnamed former Soviet republic.

Her reasoning is because it will 'cement the relationship' between her and her husband.

She may well be the most selfish individual in Europe.

Sorry folks but let's look past all this 'oh what a miracle' and 'isn't it incredible what science can do' bullshit - I find this a desperately sad and sickening story on all kinds of levels.

First off, the obvious one - the woman is 63!!! Now, be truthful here: it doesn't matter what kind of condition you're in physically, once you hit your mid-60s the possibility of your heart/body just saying 'that'll do' and packing up without warning becomes significantly larger then before - as does the possibility of other physically and/or mentally disasterous ailments. Becoming a parent at that age is just an act of pure selfishness and foolishness in regards to the child. At the age of 7, she'll be 70. At 17, 80. Many say you never recover from the loss of a parent and, whatever happens, it takes many years to come to terms with it. But there's a very real chance that this child could lose not just one, but both of its parents before they've even exited their teens. how the hell do you recover from that, when you've not even had the time or life experience to adjust to the idea that those you care about are mortal. What kind of trauma could that cause someone?

All parents like to try to relate to their children...but is there any way that parents in their 70s (as that's what they'll be) can actually relate to a young teenager, even share in their culture and interests? There has to be common ground somewhere - or you may have the opposite effect, bringing a child up with a set of antiquated values and leaving them open to enormous ridicule and derision from those people around their own age. To be honest, aside from the possibility of buying one packet of nappies for 2 different generations of people, there's possibly a lack of common ground there.

Considering these people are now of pensionable age, they have demonstrated one quality often attributed to the young - an enormous demonstartion of irresponsibility. As well as many countries throughout the world refusing to carry out such treatment on people anywhere near her age (which should flag up some kind of warning), the fact that your body naturally loses its ability to bear children after a certain age should give you a clue that it isn't a good idea...that she is a child psychologist just makes me think that here's a professional simply trying to prove a point to others in her profession, someone so enclosed in their own professional opinion that they've no doubt ignored many, many others.

But none of those are the worst...in fact, the worst reason isn't even connected with the age of the couple. No, it's the 'we're having a child to cement our relationship' reason. I can think of few worse reasons. If you're having a child for any other reason apart from because you'd simply love to have a child, bring it into the world and care for it throughout its life then you're in trouble. If you're having one for a reason that has NOTHING to do with the child, but everything to do with yourselves...that's worse. A child to cement your relationship? Sorry, but that suggests you have something wrong with your relationship that you're hoping a child will fix - what kind of pressure is that to put on him or her? If you're going to have a baby, you should be damn sure that everything is 100% fine between yourself and your partner first, shouldn't you? If it's something you want, fair enough - if it's something you need, that's dangerous ground.

Overweight? Then don't eat so much, you loser.

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:28:48 GMT

Have just watched a snippet of the film 'Super Size Me' on C4 about the guy who decides to live on McDonalds food for 30 days following two girls bringing a case to court against McD's, blaming their food for making them fat.

And guess what? It's inspired another rant.

Let's get one thing abundantly clear from the start. I'm overweight.By quite a way, in fact. I probably need to lose in the region of 4 stone or so (at least) to even get within the ballpark of whatever my ideal weight is. Now I'm a tall guy - can get away with it to an extent - but if someone decided to describe me as fat, it'd be difficult for me not to hold my hands up and say 'guilty as charged' (though that sounds too much like exercise to me).

And do you know whose fault it is? Mine. No-one elses. And I'm sick and fed up of hearing my fellow wobbly crowd blame every other thing under the sun for their condition apart from their own lack of willpower. If you're fat, deal with it - either change your attitude towards your self-image and accept + be happy about it, or do something to change it - but don't try and make it that it's anyone or anything else's fault but your own.

I've heard all the reasons - and they're all almost universally rubbish. Ok, one in a thousand people can get away with the whole 'glandular' plea, but the other 999 are simply covering their glands with too much fat. Unless you're preparing for the next Ice Age, it doesn't really wash.

"But it's McD's (or BK or KFC etcetc) fault for selling the food" - wrong. In ther vast list of duties that these underpaid clerks have to fulfil is not listed "force the customer to hand over their money in exchange for food, then leap over the counter, wedge their jaws open, and cram it down there". No-one is making you buy it...

No-one has ever advertised the food as being good for you. In truth, if you're stupid enough to think that eating 3 pieces of deep fried, greasy chicken and fries ISN'T unhealthy then just keep going. Join the underage smokers in that group labelled 'we're so stupid that we're wasting oxygen that could be used by intelligent people thru mere breathing' and rid the world of your presence. Plus, following the path known as 'logic', it doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to realise that, if a medium-sized burger isn't good for you then a BIGGER burger will be even worse.

"It's genetic - I've inherited big bones" - my friend, the only big bones you've inherited are ones covered in big chunks of meat from a passing cow. There's a simple mantra that says 'if you intake more calories then you burn off, you'll get heavier - less and you'll get lighter'. Your ancestors have carried out no mystical voodoo ceremony to curse you through the ages.

It's really, really simple - eat less, exercise, lose weight. That's not saying it's simple to stick to it - god knows I've tried and failed enough times - but it's a simple, easy-to-understand theory that always holds true. You can try all the diets you want but, ultimately, that's the bottom line. I'm not advocating anyone else insulting people about their weight (has left me with a few complexes for sure), BUT let's not start some self-pitying whining about how it's everything and everyone else in the world that's responsible for us liking our food and not liking exercise more then others - it's down to us.

Cowards - You Make Me Laugh

Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:14:33 GMT

Part and parcel of owning a blog like this one - where you're very open, fairly blunt and brutal and quite prepared to make yourself look like an idiot (doesn't take much work in truth *lol* - is the random messages chucked on by some people.

'Tis a free, open society and I welcome the chance for people to openly express their opinion and comment - but folks, PUH-LEEZE, show some invention out there!!

This morning's (sad)case was a random message from someone saying 'you look gay, get a life' etc. When I finally stopped laughing, I deleted it.

Why? Not becase it offended me or particularly bothered me. Let's face it, if I can't cope with an insult like that after I've had to fight off fears of being gay or a pervert for years whilst in the depth of my illness then I wouldn't have ever started this place! Also makes me giggle that someone should take the time and effort to read things here and leave a message like that - and asks someone ELSE to get a life! Please try harder - I have an ample enough frame to take far more sticks and stones then that.

No, has been deleted because the person never offered a right to respond. No contact details beyond a vague calling card, no email address, no blog etc. In short, a coward.

What point am I trying to make? Am I trying to make one? I guess so - I think what I'm trying to say is that if you wanna have a bitch at me, my views, my life, my interests etc, then bring it on! If you write anything like this you've gotta expect people to take a pop, whether it's 12 year-olds like today or people with genuine grudges (yes, have had a few apparently Muslim complainants too) - happy to do so, folks. But how about being fair and giving all us here at T2D (we have a happy readerships of a good few hundred a week if the stats are anything to go by) a chance to conduct a similar evaluation of yourself?

Plus, make it entertaining - drag it up above the 'My Dad's bigger then your Dad' level (though, in truth, I'm probably bigger then your Dad anyway in both the horizontal and vertical) - we have standards.

Maybe I should start a board exclusively for complainees?

Just how much effort does a phone call take?

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:16:37 GMT

If I phone up the medical centre at 10am in the morning to find out the time of an appointment....just how much time and effort does it take for someone to phone me back to say 'it's at such-and-such time'?

It's not difficult, is it? I don't give a s*it that the person was 'quite busy' (even less when I discover they only work 3 days a week and now won't be able to phone me about it 'til they're back in on Monday), a phone call takes a matter of seconds.

Honestly, my experiences are teaching me that the NHS Mental Illness Depts are laughably inept by and large. Staff disappear for periods of time, when one person isn't in the whole office system crumbles, appointments are incorrectly booked or forgotten about, the doctor treating you changes w/o any warning, they have no idea what meds you're on, they suffer astonishing delays when waiting to see them, letters and correspondance go missing...it also seems they have no appointment list database on their computer system (indeed I'm not convinced their system is even networked) and they also don't save their correspondance (I've dictated a letter to them stating what medication I wanted in the past for them to send to my doctor!). The list goes on...

It's a good job I'm not an obsessive or those phone calls not being returned would really annoy me.......

Point made.

Gay Marriage

Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:27:58 GMT

I'm ashamed this week, folks - ashamed of the attitude and nasty, vitriolic outbursts I've heard from many people in the media towards the new civil partnerships for gay couples. Ashamed most of all because many of these outbursts seem to have been made by people within the religious community, of which I was once a part.

First, let's clear something up - these are civil partnerships/weddings/marriages. They are not church services...indeed, religion has no part of these services. So, quite simply, the church has no place in offering an opinion of either agreement or condemnation on such things. When they become religious church ceremonies then that's a different area - but the comments over the past week show that this is unlikely to ever happen.

You see, it strikes me that this issue has dug up one of the uglier sides of Christianity and its views and touched on an area where tolerance and non-judgement seems to be rather lacking.

No surprise really - the religious community has villified gays for centuries now. But it seems to me as though the Church itself is so hamstrung by different interpretations of the Bible and wanting to appear presentable in a modern society that it's silently allowing these attitudes to continue by not coming out (ha ha) with a definitive standpoint on these issues for its followers. Plus, surely such a lack of guidance means that the vicars in the pulpits every Sunday are given free reign to preach whatever they want on such an area - and, if this week is anything to go by, some of these views are hardly tolerant.

Lets face it - if anyone should have problems with the idea of homosexuality then it's someone, like myself, who has an anxiety disorder of which one of the triggers is a fear of homosexuality or a sexual reaction to men!! If I can cope with it then surely everyone else can?!

As an aside, just heard another religious person on the radio saying that these civil partnerships are 'abhorrent' as the idea of being together as a pairing is based on marriage and that comes from God. Ummm, the idea of committing yourself to another in a faithful partnership has been there since time immemorial folks - it predates the Bible by a long way, which simply gave it a name. And besides - how many people get married w/o a church blessing? Many, many of them (indeed, a great deal of those people who have a full church service do so without any religious beliefs at all - they sit through the 6 weeks of church lessons just to get the job done).

EBay - stop being foolish

Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:51:47 GMT

Do any of you really think it costs more then £1.20 max to post a DVD?

Don't do it folks - anyone paying the stupid postage mark-ups of £1.75 upwards should be banned from it for sheer stupidity. These are listings made by people trying to guarantee themselves a profit thru their postage charges rather then the auction itself.

For Gods sake, I could post myself for some of the charges they make.

Gis A Job - go on Mister

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:13:55 GMT

Am I missing something or what?

Here was me thinking finding a job working from home would be easy - scrub that theory.

It's ridiculous. I may not be stable enough to work in a 'normal' environment but am ok to work to some capacity from home. I have a nice computer, a fast internet link and a list of jobs as long as your arm that are brimming with data entry experience, editorial duties, proof-reading and the like...all skills which are valuable in the field. Companies wouldn't have to worry about health & safety, office space and the like.

Yet there's virtually nothing out there beyond the remarkably dodgy telesales from home or delivering Kleeneze catalogues opportunities.

Grrrr.

'Not all muggers should be arrested'

Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:06:32 GMT

No - it's true, according to the current Lord Chief Justice, Judge Phillips. Though the story seems to have only really broken over the past 2 days, the following report from The Times a week ago is probably the clearest one about what is being suggested:

The Times Report

Un-be-lievable but true. The crime of mugging is being downgraded as a sometime non-jailable offence? A crime which is often far more personal and far more upsetting then burglary to the victim, due to the almost inevitable confrontation and physical nature of a mugging. And yet - they are downgrading it.

It's a strange tangent, but the big argument used against the legalisation of cannabis springs to mind here (something I used to be all for but, in recent years having seen the effect on people close to me, I've shifted my position on). MPsand the law seem fully behind the idea that smoking cannabis itself may not be awful, but it CAN lead onto more harmful types of drug abuse in a predictable chain of escalating events. Can the same not be applied to crime?? The easier one crime like mugging is (and the less deterrent there is for it thru prosecution and punishment), the more it can lead into bigger crimes and anohter 'chain of escalating events'? I think so.

A personal perspective here - a semi-close relative of mine is currently serving a number of years in jail for a mugging that went wrong and ended up as manslaughter. Said person had a bad drug habit and had been picked up numerous times by the police for stealing/mugging and other crimes to fund said addiction - yet, due to our wonderful legal system, always cautioned or fined and no more (despite pleas from the eprson's immediate family to lock them up for their own good) - it was a 'small' crime (despite done hundreds of times) and jails didn't have the room. Had they been locked up and the crime dealt more severely with beforehand, there may well be a pensioner still alive today.

Yet rather then enforcing sentences and punishing crimes, they're going to lessen them?!! It's a cost-saving exercise folks. Don't be fooled by this talk of 'emphasis on rehabilitation' rubbish - it's just a way of avoiding the simple solution: BUILD MORE PRISONS. Rather then building a succession of 3rd rate tower blocks and council estates for the young chavs, just build prisons instead. They'll end up there eventually - save the time, cut out the middle man. rehabilitation is all well and good but we seem to be rapidly forgetting that punishment has to be an element as well.

Early release for good behaviour? Why? Its a bit late - you should have behaved before you were nicked, chummy. Open prisons? Isn't there a contradiction in terms in the very bloody sentence? And then, of course, we have the excuses. 'They're bored', 'we can't control them', 'they don't mean any harm' and the like - often from the parents. Sorry, but that's rubbish. You think teenagers have never been bored etc in the past, or had no money? That people in the past have never grown up in rough areas? That living on a council-estate or on benefits is an excuse for your kids to kick off, steal, harass, bully, fight etc? That's crap and no excuse. Right and wrong is a fairly easy concept to grasp and, as moronic as these kids seem, if any of them actually don't understand that stealing/mugging/assault and the like is wrong then they shouldn't even be allowed out without a day pass.

Pathetic - enforce these laws, don't soften them for a solution that is clearly not working as one look at the streets and today's youth will show you.

It's time for another Good Idea - Bad idea

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:27:39 GMT

Good Idea - realising filelodge.com is now back up and trying to put together a new quiz. This will go up on Friday now, much due to the following.

Bad Idea - As a result of XP taking it upon itself to change some of my hardware settings after a reinstallation, deleting a very large quantity of music files I'd saved on the machine while trying to make said competition file and having to put them all back on the system again - with the added bonus of not knowing exactly which ones were lost.

Ho hum.

Blunkett - blind in so many ways...

Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:43:35 GMT

Ok...this has been annoying for the past week since our esteemed secretary for work and pensions made the below statement last week - will print the story (courtesy of The Scotsman) first, then reply.

A job will cure stress and depression much better than watching daytime TV, Cabinet Minister David Blunkett said.
Mr Blunkett faces the threat of a backbench revolt over plans to get many of the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit back into work.
He insisted those who needed long-term care would be comfortably provided for. But he added: "If people will reconnect with life, getting out, that is volunteering, being able to re-associate with the world of work, suddenly they come alive again.
"That will overcome depression and stress a lot more than people sitting at home watching daytime television."
Mr Blunkett will set out eight principles behind his forthcoming reforms in Whitehall at lunchtime.
Tackling the high number of people on incapacity benefit (IB) was a first term priority for Tony Blair that never happened.
Labour's new, smaller majority means any suggestion that people are being forced back into work risks a Commons defeat this time around.
However, ministers are adamant that the number can be cut, citing research that shows nine out of 10 hope to return to work up to a year after signing on.
There are four times the number of people claiming IB than there were on invalidity benefit 25-30 years ago, Mr Blunkett said.
"Health has got better, medical science is improving by the day, technology has changed the nature of work so that people can work part-time," he said. "We have a situation where we can offer people liberation from dependence in a way that was never possible before."

*sighs loudly* It really makes you wonder what hope there is for those people suffering from genuine forms of stress-related illnesses, anxiety disorders and serious depression when a leading government minister can make such ill-informed, gross generalisations about such people - and use them (in a way that sickens me) to appeal to your average red banner tabloid reader.

Let's get this straight - those people who USE anxiety/stress/depression as a way to sit around watching tv and get out of work I have no time for. Those people who suffer from minor forms of stress and depression I am sympathetic towards, but acknowledge most of them simply need a short break and a change of lifestyle if things are getting to them.

Yet such a generalisation as the one above is ridiculous, inaccurate and damaging to the interpretation of those people who do suffer serious forms of such illnesses by the genral public. Many serious sufferers are simply NOT ABLE to go out and do voluntary work - many are unable to go out at all, others unable to even face people. Serious depression sufferers struggle to even get up in the mornings and do simple, basic things like wash and dress - not because they are lazy or lack motivation, but because even acts as simple as them become difficult. They have no concentration, their mental strength and tolerance exhausted.

No-one is saying that, at a certain point during recuperation, it becomes unhealthy to lock yourself away. You need to progress, to challenge yourself, to start to integrate - indeed, for many sufferers, that's what they are desperate to do, they crave that normality.

But such a statement by Mr Blunkett, given this government's consistent record of manipulating the employment figures, implies that many people may be forced back to work - and possibly into a relapse - not because they've been off for too long, but because of the medical profession's inability to treat such illnesses and disorders quickly and effectively (or should that be 'cost-effectively').

Yes, catch those people taking advantage of the system. Yes, improve the Back To Work system to help those who've become institutionalised in their own home to their own detriment (though eliminating the Back To Work dedicated sections as the government are doing in 2006 isn't exactly the way forward there...). But do not bring victimisation upon those genuine sufferers who have enough problems already, without the stress of a pressured return to a workplace which they are medically not ready for. Don't put your own need to juggle the employment figures above the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people.

Neighbourhood Watch - why, exactly?

Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:05:55 GMT

____________________________________________________________________________________

Has anyone else considered just how pointless Neighbourhood Watch schemes are?

Jobsworth, otherwise known as our local Neighbourhood Watch person, keeps hounding Mum for a £5 yearly subscription fee of some kind. Now, after his most recent hammering at the door (to which i didn't answer - I'm unsociable at the best of times while at home and figure that if you haven't got my phone number or email then I probably don't want to chat to you anyway) I am sorely tempted to point a few truths out to him.

What happens if we don't pay it?

Obviously, I assume it means we won't get the monthly newsletter (piece of A4 paper), one side adorned with such useful security advice as 'lock your doors' (really?), telling us our community police officer has left and we don't know who the new one is yet (thanks) and, in case of an emergency, phone 999 and the other side having a very basic calender on it. What a loss.

But what else? Does it mean that, if we do happen to be burgled and this NW man who lives a number of streets away happenes to be stood outside the house and sees it, that he won't actually tell anybody? Maybe he'll help them to teach us a lesson (and possibly steal a PC with better desktop publishing software then he has)?Considering he can't even manage to get the local council to turn the top of a street lamp 180 degrees round to shine on a car park rather then a piece of pavement and someone's bedroom window (and so solve the areas biggest crime risk), I find such activity on his part unlikely.

Also - does he think that people who aren't part of Neighbourhood Watch don't bother watching? Our bungalow is surrounded by hordes of pensioners who twitch the curtains if a butterfly passes the window. They don't need to pay £5 for the privilege. Surely, if we're all agreeing to keep an eye out, he should be paying us??

This sounds so obvious to me that I must have missed the point somewhere - perhaps I should ask him on his next attempt to batter down the door.

Gay Marriage

Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:11:45 GMT

It seems that, with the first batch of these about to go throguh, the debate about gay marriage has flared up again....

In truth - what's the problem? Ok, I'll admit that as a RELIGIOUS ceremony (at least within the Christian church as I'm not sure about other faiths) it's a no-no. That's NOT because I personally have a problem with it but, within church dogma, it's pretty straightforward in the Bible that it's not something it condones.

Now you and may may think that is wrong but I'd lose even more respect for the church then I already have if they bent (excuse the pun) the rules to allow it. Whether right or wrong, the guidelines it sets its belief structure on were laid down in their eyes) thousands of years ago by God and are immovable - simple as that. Ok, there has to be some flexibility of interpretation to adapt to the real world BUT, in essence, it isn't the church's place to adapt to the real world. It's meant to be there as a constant guide morally while society changes around it. In my view, the core beliefs and views of the church are exactly that - and changes in social viewpoints should not change church doctrine to what is or isn't politically correct at the time.

Don't get me wrong - I personally have no problems with gay marriage - but the Church clearly does and Christianity is absolutely 100% clear about it in it's doctrine. I may not agree with it being against gay marriage but I think society would lose all respect for it if it changed its views simply to attract a bigger audience.

I don't for a second think that the idea of pro-creation is a central part of marriage - lets face it, how many couples don't have children out of choice - but the church does and its doctrine does. So if you are gay but want a church-blessed marriage - forget it. What's the point? Don't bother arguing against it, as it isn't even the fault of those people in charge of the church now. Their following a rulebook written quite a while ago and they can't change it. Besides, those really intent on a church-blessed marriage will probably be religious anyway - and, if that's true, I doubt that any gay people have been done any favours by church attitudes towards them. Your belief and relationship with God or whatever power is up there is probably far more personal then many other Christians as you've probably HAD to develop it in private and so imbue it with an honesty and openness often missing from many other religious types.

Doesn't matter if it's a church or civil ceremony - if you've cleared it on a one-to-one level with whatever creator you believe in, you'll be blessed. Simple as that.

Yep, that's all a bit ranty I know - but, as well as my normally contentious religious views, I also have had one or two gay friends who've been badly treated by the church and churchgoers in the past and so its a bit of a sore point with me.

Bl**dy MSN Spaces

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:01:53 GMT

Any other bloggers getting sick to death of MSN Spaces?

Aside from it being so limited in terms of page design (I know ideally we all want to code our own - am learning to - but would like to use my own page background and not have to use cracks to add lists etc), the constant problems of typing a big entry, clicking 'OK' and then being told the service isn't available and losing everything is annoying me.

As well as readers reporting they're having a nightmare leaving messages...and having to be part of MSN to do so.

Soon as I can create my own space using html, I'm out of here - if not before...*dark look*.

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...1

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:06:03 GMT

Supermarkets.

I don't like them at the best of times. The simple reason being that they are full of people who appear completely deficient. As a result, I apply to them the same rule my father taught me to apply to road users - "treat every other person like a complete f*cking idiot" - it works.

Kids in supermarkets - no. A supermarket is not a playground to run around screaming in - that just annoys me. A trolley is not something you look grown up behind. Parents - if you have had children, your penance should be having them attached to you by a chain at the ankle whenever you go out in public. At least then they just annoy you - and, being as its your fault they exist anyway, that's as it should be.

Old people - astoundingly push trolleys the way they drive cars. They have no real idea where they are going and are a little confused about how to get there. Instead, they dawdle along in the middle of the aisle, suddenly stopping (blocking the whole thing) to stare into space for minutes at a time.

Then you have the middle-aged housewives who feel they can't walk on without looking at every single can of soup 3 times before making their decision...which invariably ends up being the one they made before. Oh, and lets not forget their favourite one: the 'oh, there's Sandra - HIIIII!!! and stop-in-the-middle-of-the-aisle-to-talk-and-block-up-the-whole-place' manouevre.

Then you get the checkout operators who treat taking DVDs and CDs out of the protective cases like an element of the Krypton Factor.

Finally - and most annoying of all - the 'Exit' door. If you're so illiterate that you can't tell the difference between 'Exit' and 'Entrance' how on earth do you manage to read the labels on things once inside? Here's a hint - if someone is leaving the building with a full trolley - that's the exit. The sensible method is to then use the OTHER door - not to just stand there in some kind of Mexican stand-off to see who'll move first. Because I won't.

Idiots.

A message to the medical profession....

Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:44:54 GMT

Just in case the below post didn't clear things up, let me clarify my position re: you at this moment in time.

Traffic Jams - is it just me...

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:09:19 GMT

...or is everyone too PC to say the real truth?

In the past ten years, we've seen an explosion in public transport. More buses on the roads and a plethora of lanes being created across the city streets for them.

Car-sharing has been actively promoted - park and ride facilities have been built and 2+ lanes provided for use in the rush hour.

Transport using bicycles has been encouraged with cycle lanes springing up everywhere on busy roads.

City centres have become pedestrianised, diverting traffic away from them to allow pedestrians easier access.

The result???

The policy is a complete and utter failure.

Bus lanes and car-sharing lanes have caused absolute, unceasing traffic chaos on the city streets, particularly during rush hour. Bristol hits close to gridlock during these times. 2+ lanes are hardly used within the places they're implemented, instead increasing congestion on previously swiftly-moving dual carriageways by removing a lane for everyone. Park & Ride facilities are in woefully inconvenient locations for many (with those being announced for the future liable to add to congestion on already-overcrowded A-roads). The privatisation of public transport has seen prices go through the roof, with regular increases never been reflected in the service. Indeed, the only way First Bus can announce better time targets is by adjusting bus timetables to make them more infrequent.

Of course, in Bristol at least, many of them are all stuck in the centre of the city due to the ridiculous, half-abandoned pedestrianisation of the centre.A gargantuan failure of traffic planning has left negotiating the city streets akin to playing blind mans bluff in a car, while being given directions by an alzheimer patient.

As for bicycles...the statistics regarding road rage incidents and minor damage to cars as a result of bike riders must make astonishing reading. No laws apply to these people - traffic lights, pelican and pedestrian crossings, pavements, underpasses, cars and pedestrians are all of little consequence to them. Yet they can disobey every rule of the road without any kind of punishment whatsoever. Lets be truthful - every time they show the 'Now you see him...' advert, every car driver on earth is thinking 'what the f*** were you doing there to start with?'.

The bid to appease the rabid enviromentalist lobby is an abject failure. Perhaps more cars have been taken off the roads, BUT those left are emitting far more fumes as a result of being in perpetual gridlock and I'd imagine the roads are now far more dangerous for all road users as a result of these measures.

Surely its time for car users and the environmental lobby to work together in finding a solution, rip up the terrible half measures and mistakes made so far, and start again?

So much for Industrious...

Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:22:34 GMT

Hasn't helped my game to run properly at all. Depending on tech support staff does NOT inspire me with optimism...

Sorry, Perhaps I Should Type It Slower...

Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:00:52 GMT

...in order for people to understand the whole 'guestbook' concept. Y'see, that's the space for you to leave a msg like 'nice site', 'crap site', 'this site is freaking me out because of all the mushrooms i took', that kinda thing.

Much as I LOVE such random comments popping up everywhere else, I just feel obliged to say 'write 'em there, please'.

Unless, of course, you've realised that us obsessives go a little mad about such things and are just doing it as a wind-up. In which case, allow me to hold my sides together before they most veritably split. No, really.

*This has been a genuine plea unfortunately issued by the Sarcasm Police*

Free cigarettes for under-14s

Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:09:17 GMT

Come on - all you non-smokers have an attitude towards as that suggests you think we'd promote things like that. In your eyes we're all the great unwashed, deficient in many ways and incapable of listening to reason. For some of you, the typical smoker spends their days belching out at least half a tonne of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere per day, whilst we no doubt sit upon our horses hunting squirrels and helpless woodland creatures, occasionally stopping to itch the pair of horns sprouting from our heads. Those parents who smoke make a special point of standing over their newborn babies cots for 30 minutes and blowing smoke into their faces just to make sure they get a taste for it in later life. We are a demon breed............and that's the problem we all have with you. In my experience, we're all a fairly reasonable bunch. You get the odd idiot (who, contrary to your beliefs, isn't an idiot because smoking has diseased his brain but is just an idiot), but most of us will show consideration and are happy to do so. We're aware that our addiction isn't a healthy one (so spare me the patronising 'we're doing it for their own good' speech, please), and the vast majority of us actually speak to others and discourage them from doing the same. But none of you rabid non-smokers, dripping vitriol from every orifice, could EVER admit that smokers are normal people too. We're happy to discuss curtailing our freedoms - stick us in a seperate room, no problem. In a seperate section with proper extraction fans, brilliant. Don't smoke around food-serving places - no problem at all. But no - you won't be happy until we're shipped off onto a big boat in the middle of the ocean and cast adrift. Sorry, but I'm sure one of the main rasons we all carry on lighting up is because WE'RE PETRIFIED OF BECOMING ONE OF YOU!!! You always return to the Roy Castle case about passive smoking. The man put himself in a permanently smoky club environment every night for 20-30 years and his main job involved excessive inhalation! Not exactly a standard case, is it? We pollute the atmosphere - folks, hate to pop that little bubble, but your catalytic converters still don't turn those exhaust fumes into pure rosewater. Teenagers start smoking w/o knowing the consequences. Good. If there's any 13 year-old on the planet who is unaware that cigarettes aren't healthy, then they need their lifespan shortened. This world is over-populated anyway - what a perfect way to cull the stupid people. Until you're willing to have a reasonable dialogue with us, leave us to wheeze in peace.

I'm sorry, are you deficient?

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:26:19 GMT

Haven't sold my first item after all. The EBay deficient emailed me to say 'I haven't got a PayPal account and have to send you a postal order'. Ahhhhh, I'm sorry - you have me confused with someone who said 'I'll accept a postal order' on my advert. Idiot. Have relisted the item - not even bothered to leave negative feedback as the guy probably wouldn't be able to read it. People are so F***ing dumb sometimes - if I advertise 'do it like this', I don't mean 'do it your way' instead. It isn't rocket science. Maybe I should have sent him a picture with me holding up a certain amount of fingers, just to check he could count (it'd be '2' for those a little bit behind). Carly - now I know a little bit about how you feel after your bookshop annoyances!

Things To Do In Bristol When You're (OCD)ead: Rant

D-Day - some still remember...

Comic Relief introduces reverse psychology

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: D

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: C

T2Ds A-Z of Things That Annoy: B

T2Ds A-Z of things that annoy: A

**RANT WARNING** 4 Days 'til Boxing day - GOOD! Plus a personal address...

F*ck off you an*l deficient

Bl*ody MSN...

Idiocy, Thy Name is Chris Adams - Cycle-riding idiot

Just how thick must you be to need a 'Level Crossing' safety ad?

63 yr old Mum-to-be? If God meant pensioners to be sexually attractive...

Overweight? Then don't eat so much, you loser.

Cowards - You Make Me Laugh

Just how much effort does a phone call take?

Gay Marriage

EBay - stop being foolish

Gis A Job - go on Mister

'Not all muggers should be arrested'

It's time for another Good Idea - Bad idea

Blunkett - blind in so many ways...

Neighbourhood Watch - why, exactly?

Gay Marriage

Bl**dy MSN Spaces

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...1

A message to the medical profession....

Traffic Jams - is it just me...

So much for Industrious...

Sorry, Perhaps I Should Type It Slower...

Free cigarettes for under-14s

I'm sorry, are you deficient?

RANT WARNING 4 Days 'til Boxing day - GOOD! Plus a personal address...

Fck off you anl deficient