@farmerman,
I was faced with a foursome effemm. Had you not noticed? Are you bullying me with numbers again. ci. says you're only 2% so that's not on.
I was also at work. I was popping in and out. I restrained myself actually.
And I have a potential interesting exchange going on with osso and Queenie concerning sexual fantasy and I haven't seen any evidence that even advanced monkeys ever engage in that activity. Have you?
Even Heathen writers I have read, and I've read a few, never mention it.
Have you an opinion on cultural aspects impinging upon the content of sexual fantasy which scientist have shown, at some length, to be quite common and very common in certain categories. Those much like monkeys and under the age of 20 seem to be the only category where it is only quite common.
If you could present your Darwinianism in sentences of such style, accuracy and brevity as those last two I think we might take more notice of you. We being me and anybody who cares to join me.
It is my fundamental thesis that literary atheists are turgid, boring, long-winded, meaningless, bigoted and more or less illiterate and spending one's time in their company, either on the page or in the pub, is to be avoided at all costs for fear of becoming stuck in down-shouldered, cringing, trodden in the muck mode under the constantly raining blows of their inimitable rhetoric.
Except, of course, for amusement.
One feels that should atheists ever come to power one companions, and even oneself possibly, might suffer the fate I envisaged and I would far rather believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if It delivered us all from that. In tomato sauce I mean.
It is something of a measure of how successful your side is becoming that there have been six regulars in the pub this last few nights who have been constantly jumping off the ground a bit, an inch or two, flapping their arms above their heads and going "cuckoo" minus the "cuck". Each performance, must be hundreds by now, produces gales of hysterical laughter and then they all get out their mobile phones to check if anyone has texted them: then they look at each other shouting inanities, really good ones, until somebody goes "oo" again which isn't long. And the funniest thing is is that three of them are women who don't put out nor cook and clean for a bloke. They just come to the pub to run the conversation of the blokes who are, of course, traitors to the cause. Nunneries are for women like that. It's getting your social acceptance under false pretences. And your entertainment. When they have had enough they waddle out of the pub with a cheery wave and leave the blokes looking crestfallen which they relieve by going "oo" again.
You see effemm--the sort of blokes such women attract, the sniffer dog type who never learns, drive women who do put out out of the pub. Which, by the inexorable laws of gravitational attraction, or magnetic repulsion, drives the blokes looking for women who do put out away.
So you are winning. But you haven't won. There are ten channels on my TV which are designed to get chaps to ring up at £2 a minute. I don't suppose I need try my hand at painting you a picture of them. I feel sure you can observe what I can and draw the same conclusions from the objective evidence on my new 47" screen. The late night ones I am referring to. Night shift workers have to make do with Playgirl types. I will concede victory to your side when the actresses are allowed to draw aside the zaimph.
I wouldn't like to be an atheist trying to justify the current regulations. The actresses make it quite obvious that it is only the regulations which are preventing them from casting aside the last clout. At £3 a minute. I'm wondering if the bookies are betting on which channel allows it first.
