29th September: My birthday!

People of the world panic! I'm one year closer to achieving adulthood, and then we're all totally fucked!

I'm sure that any blog that starts with the above sentence means that most people just turn off and ignore the rest of it, but it was worth it. I found it amusing, even if no one else did. Or even if it got disapproving looks from a few people that know me.

I mean... someone blocked me on MSN this evening. It's not exactly unusual, but it's uncommon enough to merit a mention. Especially when the excuse given was, "I don't like your screen name because my little sister was looking at our conversation and went and asked parents what porn was."

Couple of things here.

Oh yeah, just so you know... My current MSN name is 'Hentai isn't porn! It's just dirty Anime! {Last update: 28th}'

Couple of things, like I was saying.
Firstly, why is anyone else reading in on conversations between me and another person? As I'm sure Grace can tell you, I don't take kindly to this... it's not done, and especially not when I'm under the impression that I'm talking to one person and not a bunch of them. To extend that a little further - it means that IF you are talking and IF you have someone else who is able to read that conversation you tell me. Then I can avoid saying anything that embarreses you (and I know LOTS of things that could embarress lots of people... ask Charlotte about this) and I can avoid saying anything that embarreses me. Or that puts me neck deep in the smelly stuff that horses leave behind as they wander up the high street.

Secondly, why should it bother someone what my screen name is? If it's inappropiate - which this one COULD be - then simply asking nicely for me to change it will normally result in it changing. Ordering me to change it, or delivering ultimatums, will hardly ever change the situation. If anything, I'll just dig in heels and refuse to move from my position. Once I've adopted a moral position I stay there generally. I don't like to back down, apart from to a few people who know how to make me back down.

Those people should know who they are... none of them are at my new school, so I'm having to learn more self-control. Great.... such fun.

Thirdly, if your friendship is based on you liking every single part of me and changing those parts of me that you don't like, the friendship is practically doomed anyway. Especially if you try to FORCE me to change it. And especially if you try to make me change if on my birthday.

So, anyway, now I've got round to telling you that my 'friend' got blocked and now tags along in a boring folder of mine called "Blocked people" (which clears itself every so often... useful feature that) let's talk about something more interesting!

I'm 15 today. Yeah.. bonus...

I got most of my presents yesterday. As in.. all 4 of them. I don't exactly get huge piles of presents, but the ones I do get proide me with what I need. I mean.. I need organ music, I got organ music. I need smart dress, I got a tie. I need entertainment, I got a book which spent up a couple of hours of my time (or thereabouts...). I need somethin practical, I get a thermos flask.

I'm not sure how the last one fits together, but it does. Somehow.

In addition to all of those, I also got 30 quid. Which I'm currently working out how to spend.

And of course, I didn't quite manage to escape the all famous "Birthday Beats." I WOULD have done, if not for Charlotte. Charlotte found out it was my birthday tommorrow yesterday evening (it was yesterdays tommorrow, so the sentence makes sense) and then told her mum, who teaches at my school. The parent then "accidentally" let it slip in front of a bus queue, where someone decided that they ought to give me beats.So I now have bruises.

Thanks so much Charlotte. You get them back, with interest, as soon as I find out where you live.

Meaning I have to stalk ANOTHER person... gods... it seems to be all I spend my life doing. I seriously need to find something better to do with my life.

For those that took that last comment seriously and are now trying to track me down and ring the local police, it's a joke. I don't stalk anyone. Unless I have a very good reason or I'm proving a point that it's fairly easy to do. For those that took the final part of that last comment seriously, I DO have a life. I just don't know where to sell it or how to keep it in mint condition. One of those small problems that always bugs me.


I just got an e-mail from some random people. It's called "Tagged." Apparently some people are waiting for me on there. And then, inside of the e-mail, there's two options to choose from.. "I know these people" and "I don't know these people."
However, if you look carefully at the e-mail - which I did, simply because I'm me - you'll realise there's something a lot more sinister going on. Both of those two links are part of one large image, which is a link to the website. So no matter what you click you get redirected to their website. Presumably this means that anything could be on that link though... I mean.. I could set up an e-mail template with a few auto addin things that reflect a few of your contacts or something that links to just about anything. Malware downloads, viruses, scams, hacks, porn or anything.

So remember kids... don't click on links in e-mails unless you look carefully at everything in them first.

Unless you know how to wipe your history and reformat a hard drive. In which case go ahead! And e-mail me and tell me how to reformat hard drives. My dad won't tell me for some reason. Can't be because doing it wrong wrecks the hard drive. Surely not!


A brief note to all the people that do stuff on the internet that borders on the lines of illegal.. pircay, torrenting, underage involvement in the watching of certain erm... "educaitinal" videos. It can be tracked down. Wiping your hard drive normally doesn't work all that well. There's a few ways of doing it. To the best of my knowledge, the two main ones are setting a little computer thingy at the front of the HDD and telling it that there's nothing on the disk. It just sits there overwriting everything. The other one is rewriting all of the computer memory into a line of zeroes and a little bit of data which reads those zeroes for you. It wipes it completely.

However, in both cases there's normally a way to undo it or at least recover some of the hard drive, especially to determined computer geeks. This is just a guess though, I may be totally wrong, in which case I don't want an e-mail or a comment from you. I want you to pretend I'm right okay?

Good. Wait a minute.. did you just say no?

Damn you... I'll send an e-mail to you with links all over it! Mwhahaha!

I'm sure that some poeple are worried at that last little bit...


Im currently watching a film named "In the Name of the King." It's based on a game that I've completed. However, I've never seen such a cheesy action film. It takes the word action and fantasy to a new realm of stupidity. I mean.. you get this sudden transformation of a farmer into a brilliant warrior that can use both hands equally well and slash his way through hordes of armed orcs! It's an amazing transformation. He knows all these wonderful kicks and throws and great ways of slashing and hacking, and despite all the orcs armour he never seems to strike a low that is less than fatal.

He'll throw someone to the floor an they'll just roll over dead instead of doing what would really happen and standing back on their feet and stabbing the erstwhile hero in the back (which is what would really happen in a combat situation). I mean.. if someone throws me to the floor then I almost certainly wouldn't just stand still (or lie still) and let them run on. I'd wait for them to take a step forward, then accidentally regain my footing and stab them in the back.

Apart from these slight things, which are always consistent within the genre, there's also everyone's tendency to do an awful lot of unnecessary waving of swords and twirling of weapons and things. I mean, I wouldn't spin swords around... you know how often I'd drop it and chop off my foot or my wrist or some other part that I could just about live without, but have to struggle to do so. Admittedly, if it added to the glamour of being some hero (naturally ambidextrous, as I could never see myself being anything but an ambidextrous, dual wielding hero) and being able to have the reputation of such speed and luxury of movement to be able to do such a thing.

Naturally, of course, you have to have all the typical cheesy lines from the characters, delivered in such a voice that you can't help but be amused. I mean, there are certain lines which always make me chuckle. I mean... here's a typical example... Farmer is the main characer, Meric is one of the kings men.

Meric: Do you not think that there are things of greater consequences than you losing your wife and child?
Farmer: No. It does not occur to me.

Another one would be between a man named Sebastian (who is most definitely a warrior) and another one named Norick, whose an ex-soldier.

Sebastian: No, go ahead. (referring to a crossing of a gorge through a dangerous means.
Norick: You were more concerned about your horse!
Sebastian: I liked my horse. It's you I'm not so sure about.


I mean.. some of these lines are designed to amuse, but you're supposed to laugh WITH them, not AT them, which (to be honest) is what I'm actually doing.

Of course, the sex interest in this film is amazingly amusing. It seems that the idea of having an unwilling girl occured to them... so, of course, you get all the really rubbish cheeseball lines that consist of a girl showing disinterest, whilst developing characters. I mean, it's not like I've not seen anything like this before. Of course, no sex happens on camera, that would make this 15 an 18 (not that that would stop me from watching it, but it's not the point), so you just get all the prelude which gives just enough information to leave you knowing exactly what is going to happen.

Meh, and - naturally - the villain does everything the correct way, including the poisoning of all the major characters and the similar such acts. Doctors immediately know what ails a patient just by listening to their heartbeat, and of course magic can just about cure all of these small ailments. Such as deadly poisons. That only have one cure that's lying at the bottom of the king's heir's stomach.

I'm sure that there's a wonderful explanation for all this, but naturally, the cure only lasts for a while and as one person puts it 'time enough.'

The typical failed rescue attempts are made and failed, the normal heroes fail at what they attempt to do and so on.
The predicatibility of it all depresses me. Once I've seen so many films I get used to being able to understand exactly what's going to happen. Call it the predicitability of an unknown hero, or whatever you want. The basic principle remains the same... it's just the minor detalis such as actors and a few script changes that changes in between films. However, I've yet to see in this film the words "The hand of fate is on you" or any other similar phrase which means practically the exact same thing. It is in just about every fantasy film I've ever seen. With the exception of a few that have prophecies or long lost secrest instead.

I've managed to also work out just what is so irritating about this film. They're compressing a game which takes literally hundreds of hours to complete even if you miss out all the sidequests into a film which lasts about 2 hours. So... at that rate.. it's about an hour of gameplay per minute, so a minute per second. In other words... that's playing the game at 60 times the normal speed with only the main storyline played out and with not a single mistake made overall. That is, practically impossible.

Of course, you'd also have to play it in such a way that you never have to spend longer than a few seconds at any store, which is impossible or would require you to know exactly what is going on and exactly what is going to be in each store and where it is going to be and how much it is going to cost. In other words, you'd have to know the game inside out. Something which would be, in my opinion, impossible.

Anyone that has wasted thousand of hours playing through the game myriads of time and memorised the exact position of everything and every item and learnt eactly how to do everything in the least time possible, feel free to contact me in some way. I'll take the opportunity to find something interesting to talk about in my blog for once, instead of just what I think on a certain topic.

I also have to wonder about this movie's soundtrack. It matches the dialogue perfectly. That is to say, it's cheesy, typical and exactly what I expect from a film that, let's face it, isn't really all that good. It has the occasional bit where it makes sense, but on the whole it doesn't always quite match up with the rest of the action. It's not always quite there. I don't really know how else to describe it, which is probably why I'm repeating myself quite a bit. I'll stop talking about the soundtrack and talk about something slightly different.

The fact of the matter is, in cutting short this game into a film, they also cut out unbelievable amounts of actual gameplay. Things like the fact that the largest party you can have is 8 creatures, human or donkey. Potions have been removed, siege engines added in, magic cut out, new assassins added in. All sorts of things. It wouldn't be so apparent to anyone that hadn't already played the game through one and played parts of it several times as different characters, but to someone that has it grates against the nerves. The idea that in creating a film so much can just be cut out is one that doesn't deserve to exist. It's abominable. Disguisting. It's like the ugliest person in my school year turning naturist and refusing to wear uniform and therefore running around naked all the time. Sickening in other words.

Thankfully, it's now just about ended, but shockingly I got the ending wrong. I thought that "The Farmer" would end up married off to one of his knights, but his wife actually survived. It's amazing. Breaks with all tradition! Shocking. I shall have to watch a few more films to get used to ones that break the stereotypes. What is the world coming to when things don't follow the normal paths? I'll be surprised by things.
It was, however, one of the worst films I've seen. They could have put so much more into it and made it so much better, but they didn't. A little predictable most of the time, with no love interest, no sex, rubbish violence and more besides. I don't really understand the 15 certificiate on it. I've seen worse 12s than that. I suppose it's the awful acting and the awful soundtrack.

It is, however, a film that deserves a remake. Maybe a LOTR type thing with lots and lots of different parts (maybe even a 7 part film to allow for all that gameplay in the myriads of chapters that the original game has) with a few of the mistakes that this film made edited out. For instance, scrap the huge battles in this film that we saw. It's nearly always just the 8 characters in the game, and to make things really lifelike you could kill a few of them off on the way. I mean.. people die and you could have them gravely wounded and the main character like "Oh yeah... just leave him. We'll find a new NPC to join us soon."

Cutting out the dwarves and Glacern is an unbelievable thing. You can't have Dungeon Siege without the Dwarfy guy that joins you in the mines before Glacern. And you can't get Meric until after you've freed him from the ice caves immediately AFTER Glacern. Admittedly, the underground bits could be cut out, but this film begs to have the Goblin Factories thrown in there, with smoke and gibbering goblins and strange machinery that has a tendency to explode as the heroes run out of the opposite side. That sort of things.

The massive towns were cut out as well. This film forgets that it needs a storyline and an action bit, and that the two can't really go together. There's not really that many likeable characters in this film. Ironicly, I hate all of the characters apart from Galahain - whose the big bad wolf in this red riding hood tale - and the Ninja guys which spin around chopping things to pieces. The ninjas die in the end, and everyone is supposed to hate Galahain. I really pick them don't I?

I suppose Norick isn't too bad, but the fact that he dies at the end of this film (or partway through it) instead of at the very beginning sort of ruins it. I presume it's why they gave "The Farmer" a family, so that he had a reason beyond Norick being slaughtered to go and hunt down Galahain and join the King's forces and so on. But that's the way of the world isn't it..

Well, at least, fantasy world.


Fantasy world aside, today hasn't been the best of days. Despite it being my birthday (meaning that I no longer have to do anything like lie, cheat and decieve the friendly people down at the computer game shop in my local town) the amount of small problems and idiots, and other various things that I've hit is unbelievably high. Everyone from those that know me in real life to those that have gotten to know me through the internet and through MSN seemed to have some problem with someone.

It's not that I mind, but I sometimes wonder 'why me?'

I mean, according to lots of people I talk to, I'm not the friendliest of people. I can thoughtless (more often than not) arrogant, over-confident and more besides. However, the answer to my question lies in what I agree to do with anyone of my friends that I talk to. If they don't spout off their mouths in public, and they talk to me - say on MSN or over the phone - that conversation is private. Confidential. I won't tell anyone, unless that conversation starts to be known, or unless there is a need for me to talk. I'm not going to stand by and let my friends do stupid things. That wouldn't be sensible of me.

Something that everyone should remember when they talk to me on MSN is that no matter what they say about anyone, I don't give it away that it's been said. It sounds really easy. Something that you can manage to do with no effort at all. What you tend to forget is that every single action you make reflects how you think and feel towards a person. The inflection of how you speak to them, what words you use, what words you don't use, your body language. The slightest of things all leads to an instinctive knowledge.

You don't even realise that you're doing it most of the time. You just look at a person and you know, straight off, that that person is happy, sad, in a temper or having problems. It means that when you meet someone that has slightly better control over themselves, most girls are better at controlling body language for example (mostly because girls are aware that body language gives them away), then it throws you completely. You can't get used to the idea that they might be in a different mood to the one that you think they're in.

Then you meet other people, can't think of an example offhand, whose body language is radically different to everyone elses. Through concentration, accident or just simply to be a pain in the arse they'll have entirely different patterns of thought, different ways of acting and moving and more besides. It's hardly the easiest of things to do, reading body language, but if you ever learn how to do it, it's vastly useful. I never learnt how to do it, I just guess most of the time. However, I'm very good at guessing, and I'm getting better at reading people and predicting how they'd react.

Going back to the original point, it means that for every secret I know about you, or anyone else, I have to keep on moderating my actions. Say that someone told me that you were a dirty paedophile. If I thought that there was the slightest bit of truth in it, I'd react exactly the same as if I didn't know. If I thought that there was no truth whatsoever in it I'd laugh it off, and turn it into a joke with you later.

I'm shockingly easy to read, from my point of view, if you know exactly what I'm thinking. Or rather - how I think.

A slight hesitation before I answer is probably about as much uncertainty as I'll let you see, unless I'm speaking in public, in which case I'll blag and make stuff up on the spot. They call it improvisation, but it's actually not all that different. Me poking someone could be anything from a bid to get attention from that person to just a simple form of bullying. Or torture. Knowing who I'm doing it too helps, and realising just when I stop and what the conditions are when I stop are probably a massive part of reading my body language.

I'm sure that, if the right people read this, and put together a few intelligent heads (intelligent teenagers... a worrying prospect) then they'd come up with a little hit list of who they thought that I fancied. I'm aware that there's normally 3 or 4 rumours flying round about me, that are taken as granted because I simply don't deny them. I mean, I think back to my secondary school (yrs 7-9, ages 11-14) where in the last year alone, there were at least 3 rumours that I know of for definite and about the same again that someone mentioned to me. I'm not including matchmaking in that list of rumours, as that would inflate the figures tremendously.

Charlotte always did have a tendency to get overexcited about that sort of thing.

Boggle Hole was a scary prospect.. I got Charlotte trying to get me to go out with just about everyone and everything. Including an inflatable doll. I'm still not entirely sure WHY she thought that I might find the doll an interesting person, but I'm sure she had her reasons.

Possibly.

This IS Charlotte we're talking about afterall.

Now the amusing thing about all these lists that fly around is that no one ever gets it right (excepting two people, who had - through process of elimination - gone through just about every eligible and uneligible girl in my year, and the year below and therefore couldn't have NOT got it right in the end. They didn't KNOW they got it right though.) Scrap ideas that I am madly in love with whoever it is at the moment and start wondering about why I never seem to comment on the rumours... until someone asks me outright, which hardly ever happens.

Most normal people just deny these occasional lucridous rumours. It's certainly the sensible thing to do. It avoids trouble, means that you don't have to do anything too much like hard work and they mostly stop flying around after a while. However, life isn't fun like that.

If everyone knew exactly what your tastes in the opposite (or same, if homosexual) sex was then you'd solve half a dozen problems and break lots of hearts and a few other things. I find it a lot more amusing to watch everyone guess and then argue, and then debate and then result to kicking me and punching each other and slapping everything that moves (generally me again) until they've decided.

I'm not sure WHY they have to kick me to decide on who I fancy, but there must be a very good reason. It can't just be that they're bullying me can it? Girls are never bullies..

How could I even suggest such a thing?

Maybe it's the idea of contact.. my inner thoughts seep out and permeate their consciousness allowing them to get it even wronger than when they started.


It says alot about my life that the first ones that everyone crosses off of the list because "It's obvious you don't fancy them" are, in the vast majority of cases over the last few years, the ones that strike closest to the dead on target. Which is why, naturally, I learnt how to laugh them off.

And now I really begin to hope that the right people don't start reading this.

The wrong place at the wrong time is fine. It just means that they weren't there... but the right people at the right time doing the wrong thing? Please! Don't let it happen.

Maybe I'll touch on just WHY I put in so much about reading body language and so on.

I have a very good reason.

It means that I have to do less work because everyone is busy trying to read my body language and doesn't spend enough time concentrating on whatever else I'm doing at the time.

It is a perverse logic. If you teach someone how to do something in a certain situation, they always do it. Even when it's not even amongst the top 100 or so options to do. It's a habit which they find hard to break. So teach someone how to read body language, and then use body language to misdirect.... It's a clever plan, and one that works more often than not.

Certainly, I know that the few people that were unlucky enough to be taught by one of my teachers who had a fastidious nature and insisted that everything was just in the right place at the right angle.

Obessessive Compulsive Tidiness Disorder or something along those lines. The sort of people that store things in nicely numbered draws and throw away pencils because they're a few milimetres too short or a little too wide.

It occasionally sounds like fun, but I think that any OCTD patient that wandered into my bedroom would suffer from more than just that Disorder.

Insanity caused by overload of things to tidy would be a good start for what problems they'd have ever after.....

28th September

It has to be wondered why anyone would do anything at all in life. I mean, afterall it's fairly pointless. We're all going to die and anything we do will be pointless in about 50 years anyhow. Time doesn't stand still long enough for much we do to have a massive effect. It's almost certain that, with a few exceptions, most peope will never lead an army and conquer most of the known world and influence their culture and lifestyle for aeons to come. It's almost certain that, with a few exceptions, that hardly anyone will write a book or part of a book which will influence the history of the owrld significantly.

Or to be more precise, my proof that this isn't going to have happened is that there aren't that many people in history whom we still refer to. Given that we've got around 20,000 years of human history (approximation) to talk about we rarely talk about more than maybe 2 or 3 thousand years of that aforesaid history. The ancient persians (6000 years) get the occasional mention here and there, but no one really knows them or much about them. Occasoinal mention of Xerxes, but he's actually much later on, about 4000 years ago if memory serves correct.

And he's only famous for losing to the Spartans, who are only famous due to the 300... which is only famous because similar tactics are used worldwide today. That is something which did influenced the world... at least till the invention of guns. The only reason it's particulary remembered 4000 years later is because of the myriads of real time strategy games.

So the Persians have very few famous names. Take though, the almighty Greeks. Everyone has heard of them. But names? Maybe Arcimedes, Pythagoras and a few others who did contribute, but surely there were other philsophers and tacticians and other people of the time who influenced everything but also who, for the most part, would have been forgotten.

More recently, the romans (a mere 2500 years ago) dominated the entire world, bringing civilization. And it's documented the civilization only lasted about 5 or 6 hundred years before the 'dark ages' where everyone forgot how to write and therefore anyone important in that part of history just got forgotten as well.

The evidence, or rather - the lack of evidence, proves my point. Once you get beyond such and such a point past the time at which you did an action the action is nearly totally irrelevant.

I mean, no one cares about what I did when I was 2 or 3 years old, apart from a few things which are remembered as being particulary striking moments in my life. Leg breaking, bad moments for me... stuff like that that everyone remembers due to comedy value or other reasons that peple remember stuff for.

I think that if you look at famous people, the vast majority of them have been relatively modern ones, and for the most part, violent conqueror people. Non-violence never brought anything but a little bit of famousity, an assassination and a few other generally unpleaseant things.

I'm open to the idea that not eveyone finds them unpleaseant, naturally, but I'm also open to the suggestion that the men in the nice padded vans will visit those aforesaid people.

So anyway, whatever you do, it doesn't matter. So why do we do anything at all?


The answer is quite simple.

Unlike what many people believe, evolution was not due to high signs of intelligence. In fact, it was due to one little fish thinking, "You know... the seabed looks pretty much the same.. lets go and find something else to do." Scrap ideas of a higher life form. Evolution wasn't caused by God, it was caused by boredom! So, at last... we have a practical reason for boredom. Howeve,r this isn't the point. Or rather, I'm getting off of the point.

We do stuff because, somewhere deep inside us, we don't want to evolve. So we try to prevent boredom. And to prevent boredom we do stuff.

I'm willing to bet that that got quite a few blank looks. But think of it like this. When you evolve you change. And humans, as a rule, don't like change. I mean - given a choice between living as you'd always lived before or everything changing overnight due to some sort of catastrophic event what would you chose?

Seeing as Charlotte and Grace read this, I should probably ask the question, "What would most NORMAL people choose?" But y'know.... I'm sure they'll see sense. Eventually. Possibly.

Okay, maybe not. They are relatively "special" people.

In their own way.

Especially in their own way.....


Personally, given the choice, I'd almost certainly going to choose to keep things the same. I mean.. I don't want some catastrophic event to happen in my life. I can live with changes - I do it all the time - and I adapt with it all the time, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.



It should be noted that the above paragraph was about 3 times the legnth and much better and more constructed but my laptop crashed and I had to reload from "Especially in their own way..."

Downsides of using a laptop with no problem.

I got quite offended earlier on this week.

I was called a "typical male."

I'm anything but. The typical male is rude, uncouth, spends most of their life doing not very much, has no ambition, no brains and spends more time paying attention to his.. erm... "little friend" than to anything else around him.

I do love the euphamisms that turn up in day to day conversation. And my use of the word "euphamism" only goes to prove my point. No typical male would even know what one of them was.

Or think it was something rude, which - I suppose - isn't too far off of the mark.

Going back to the typical male thing, I'm not generally rude or uncouth, I spend most of my life doing too much, have too much ambition for my own good, am too clever for my own good and spend more attention paying attention to everything else around me than most people would consider normal. How is this a "typical male"?

Admittedly, the comment wasn't entirely unjustified. I was - as I do - sort of daydreaming. Locked inside my own head with my own thoughts. I sometimes wonder why I'm not totally insane. Then I look at the world and realise that it's because there has to be at least one vaguely sane person. Otherwise you couldn't actually have insanity, only normality.

Anyway, my daydreams consisted of private stuff, so I'm not going to dwell on them too much, but it so happened that I was in the way. For this random girl that called me a 'typical male.' Which, I suppose, might have meant that to get my attention she would have had to yell at me totally and yelled at me a little more. That would be fairly typical, as many males spend their life in daydreams.

Although, naturally, my daydreams are of a higher calibre than the typical males. They involve a....

Wait a second.. I'm not going to talk about my daydreams!

I'm sure that someone somewhere would read this and put together a few clues and hints and get something along the lines of half-baked truth and guesses which would strike a little too close to heart for me to like.

Someone normally does, and it normally girls, and as mostly girls read this I think that I'm just digging myself a bigger and bigger hole with this sentence. You see, as I mentioned before, girls can't bear it when other people keep things secret from them. Although, naturally, most girls just don't care about my secrets or daydreams except peripharally, and even that is a little too much to ask sometimes. Not that I'm asking it, but it is a very good phrase which I happen to like.

To carry on digging my hole, I leave lots and lots of very subtle clues that only make very small changes to things over a period of time. I don't go for the all-stops-out option of declaring my lovelife to everyone and everything; it would just be ridiculous coming from me. Also, my plans are hardly ever short term ones. I think the shortest term plan I ever had was about a month long... and even that was only if you didn't include the planning and the little things that prolonged it. Probably more like 6 or 7 weeks.

To understand my actions - which no one does - you have to not just understand exactly what I'm doing (which is a lot harder than it sounds) but also the reasons behind what I'm doing. The smallest of things - passing a chair to someone, making a comment to someone in an off-hand tone of voice, letting someone "accidentally" overhear something they think they shouldn't have - are often ignored by most people. They attach practically no relevance to them whatsoever. This is entirely the wrong tack to take with me. The bigger things are only big because they have lots and lots of little things all spinning round inside them.

Most people, at least those who try to manipulate the world, concentrate on only a few of the small parts and most of the big parts. I'd much rather that all the small parts are spinning and that the spinning is doing the right thing.

People, as a generality, tend to forget that friends and relations have a huge affect on their life. And that other people's friends and family have similar effects on those other people. A dangerous route is a lot easier if you get people to guide you through them and get to know the surrounding countryside first. Extending a metaphor to the limits of course. I mean that sketching out a course towards something more than a friendship is done by creating friendships and possibilities.

If the possibility for that something more does not exist, then it will never exist. Therefore, logically, if the possibility for something happening means that the something will, eventually and given enough time and opportunities, will happen.

An awful lot of manipulation is also about mindsets. You cannot manipulate situations into possibilities unless the idea of the possibility already exists in people's heads. And that idea can be strengthened through mindsets, and those mindsets can be manipulated through comments and less subtle hints. If it is believed that you have a crush on someone, then the idea of the situation of you having a crush on that person is already there. The manipulation needed is a lot less.

However, if the belief isn't there, the idea of manipulation is to create the belief and general idea.

Luckily for me, and for many other people who enjoy playing with their lives, amongst adolescents - at least, the vast majority of them - the idea of boys and girls being simply friends doesn't occur to them. And naturally, if a boy starts the friendship then he has the crush, and if a girl starts a friendship then she has the crush, and as friendships have to have mutual agreement (although subconscious mutual agreement) the teenage logic says that any male/female friendships are just forerunners to something more.

Naturally, when a friendship is started through friends of friends (such as, for instance, me being friends with Charlotte, who is the girlfriend of one of my friends) then those rules of logic don't apply. They just get ignored, and male/female friendships are taken as friendships. At least, by those inside of the friendship groups.

To anyone outside of those groups it seems like a breeding ground for something a little more than friendship.

But that's not the point, misconceptions like that can just be denied. And the denial generally works.

Just to put all the above ideas into play, I thought I'd use the hypothetical characters I created on the 23rd and demonstrate a few things.

Here are the characters again:


Person A hugs his cards. He carries them round with him all the time, but let's his close friends - including say, a few girls, the normal assortment of boys and so on - see them, or parts of them. He fancies Person G. He is mostly fairly open about his emotions, but around Person G clams up, and doesn't talk. He is obviously embarressed around her, and therefore is a fairly easy person to read. However, due to his many attempts at hiding his "cards" he has managed to mostly conceal this from the world.

Person B is a close friend of Person A. He knows most of the cards in Person A's hand, and passes on information - including stuff which he doesn't know for sure, but is only guessing at - to other people in fairly obvious hints. This part-information that he has isn't always totally accurate, and therefore any information taken from him is suspect. He never seems to fall in love, being able to distance himself from his emotions. However, it has been seen that he has avoided saying things in the group of friends of A, B, C and D. Those things are unknown, because - afterall - they aren't said.

Person C is a female friend of Person A and B. She fancies Person B, but because her cards are hidden in plain sight on the tabletop, no one knows. She is a total unknown for nearly everyone else, and has problems discussing personal things such as that. She does, however, treat Person B entirely differently to everyone else - showing kindness and thoughtfulness that is often unexpected and unsought from from her.

Person D is also a friend of A+B+C. She has had this mad crush on Person A for a long time, but thanks to Person B is aware that Person A has his eyes fixed on a different target. However, this hasn't dissuaded her from attempting to discredit Person G all the time, in an attempt to make Person G seem less of the type of person that Person A is seeing in her.

Person E is a totally unknown figure. He has no idea what his role in this game of cards is, and doesn't have any cards to play himself. He can only play other people's cards at random, being able to guess at certain facts and come to generally logical and truthful conclusions that are mostly denied as people keep their cards close to their hands. He carries packs of cards up his sleeves in effect, and - in many cases - what he says is considered to be the truth. It puts him in a position of power over many other people.

Person F is another unknown. She has next to no idea what is going on, and for this reason is trusted with knowing some of the intimate details of other people's relationships. Although this may sound wierd and unusual, she has no noticeable crush on anyone, acts pretty much identically around most people and therefore is seen as the ultimate confident. She, therefore, has learnt how to say not very much in lots of talking.

Person G is the object of desire for most of the male population, and a few of the female ones. She has no noticeable crush on anyone - prehaps due to the fact that to show that she favoured one over another would mean that the rest lose heart and that she loses the attention she gains from being the object of desire. It is unknown what would happen should she lose the desire from the male population due to any reason.

Person H is a gossip. She tends to know about everything and anything, including rumours. Therefore, because of this, many things which she says are taken to be not entirely true or logical, and for the most part she is ignored. It should, however, be remembered that despite many people ignoring gossips, they also begin to doubt their own thoughts on any topic which is gossiped about, because someone is disagreeing. Subtle disagreeement is often one of the best ways of persuading someone to change their minds on a given topic.

Person I is Person H's boyfriend. He provides her with rumours from the male population of the room, and is aware of Person A and the fact that Person A hugs his cards. He doesn't particulary like the group of A,B,C and D and would seize any available opportunity to discredit them, or simply to give them a bad reputation. He is mostly disliked by the population, as no one likes anyone that makes up rumours just to hurt other people, which Person I has done previously.

Person J is the bully of the room, who seemingly has no purpose in life but to make other peoples lives a misery. This is obviously something in common with Person G, although Person G does it by lack of choice, wheras Person J does it through totallu conscious choice. The different is subtle, but it exists.


There's a few things to remember before I start. One is that the situation comes out in the best possible way for whoever is manipulating it all. Two is that my answer isn't necessarily the right one, and that I would love to have someone post their own solution or e-mail it to me at: mediaboy@hotmail.co.uk.

I DO reply to e-mails, as long as you tell me that you got it from reading this blog. Otherwise you'll get confused messages from me, and I'll wonder where I know you from. And probably delete your e-mail along with the ones from the Viagra people and the "find cheap couples in melton" or whatever it is that they say now.


Okay, so let choose a person to manipulate the situation. Personally, I'd go for Person E to manipulate. He has the power to do it, and seems the best suited. Therefore I'll go for Person F.

From the situation above I'd say that if she has no noticeable crush then she is just very good at hiding things, and therefore wants to be noticed by someone. However, presuming that it's one of the above people (which is a fairly large presumption), then that limits it to a few. As most of the males listed above are conventional and she doesn't seem to be it's unlikely to be that useful.

Therefore I'd use her common ground of knowledge and power to establish a relationship with Person E, which would then cause controversy amongst the rest of the people in the group. Unconventional relationships always do for some reason.

This controversy and interest in her would then be used to spark off everything else. Knowing of Person A's insatiable crush, I'd then start to manipulate him, through simple things, to not see Person G as a possible relationship. Things like getting Person G off balance and making her look like a fool are a good start, but to completely muck things up I'd make her seem incompetent and useless. Despite what many males say, no one likes an incompetent female hanging on their arm. She shows them up too much.

Quick note to all you girls: most of you are useful. Empty-headed bimbos don't.
Charlotte - you're not empty-headed, you just don't use what you've got there.
Grace - you're a lot more useful to me than you actually realise, and no... I'm NOT explaining this one. You can work it out for yoursef.

With Person A now unsure about his relationship with Person G being something he wants, it's now the time to set up a situation in which he finds somoene else.

During the above manipulaiton, a similar manipulation using person D to start messing up the table of cards and to make person D more useful takes place. Person D slots nicely into the slot in Person A's life that he didn't even realised existed until Person D stepped into it. Wasn't that convenient?

Now with D and A sorted out, it's a lot more likely that Person G will feel the need to start attaching, and therefore teams up with Person J to make the rest of the world live in hell. The relationship won't last long - people like G and J rarely have stable relationships until the vast extremities of their nature have burnt away and they're a little more mature.

C is likely to be a tragic love story. With B hiding his emotions for the world, it's equally likely that he's homosexual, heterosexual or just doesn't care at all about any relationship at the moment. However, it is possible - and it has happened at least once before to my knowledge - that C finds chinks in B's emotional armour, hammers away at them and they start having an on and off relationship that develops with hormones.

The relatonship between E and F is unstable and collapses. Both of them are used to dominating, and being unable to dominate the other means that the relationship falls to pieces.

H will get a reputation for something or doing something. Girls generally do. Because of her already dubious footing, it's likely that she'll find herself a nice shallow boy or have lots of very short relationships. Which will only add to the reputation. Which is what happens most frequently.

Once a reputation is there, it's not mantaining it thats the problem. It's curing it.


That's my brief guess at how it would and wouldn't work out.

Now I've put down a solution I'm sure that some people that know me will start to draw paralells into my life, and then they'll look around and realise just how many parallels there actually are.


That was clever of me. I just spelt a word in two different ways in the same sentence. Is it "paralell" or "parallel?"

I suppose I'd have to go and look it up to find out or something.


It's very bad of me doing this actually. I'm not actually writing this on the 28th. It's currently the 29th and has been my birthday for all of 50 minutes.

Be worried local cinemas.. you might get an invasion soon.


Birthday's always irritate me.. I always seem to get exactly what I NEED and not what I want.

But that's life right? And life isn't supposed to be fair.

Looking back at what I've just said, I should probably emphasise and explain a few of the things I said and actually justify them.

Person's E and F forming some sort of relationship is inevitable. With no one showing interest in them - at least, from the 10 people I listed - then there is no chance whatsoever of them forming a relationship with anyone. Therefore, to prove to themselves and the world that they are emotionally possible of doing it they'll go and form a relationship. Bit like an arranged marriage, only with less enthusiasm from the parents, more enthusiasm from the arrangements and the occasional tendency to work out alright.

There is a parallel here for many people. Look at many relationships going on around you and think about them cynically. Are they just good friends? Are they actually in a longliving, loving relationship? Is it a convenience relationship to fill up time and say that they are in a relationship? If you think long enough and hard enough about many relationships you will see how many of them are just convenient friendships.

There isn't a parallel in my life, but there could have been if certain people had their way at a certain point about two years ago. I don't think anyone else saw it that way though.


The idea that Person G being a fool and boys not living foolish girls doesn't stand up to the casual view. It takes a little bit of a deeper look and a better misunderstanding of human nature to understand this. Many boys acclaim that all they want from a girl is "activity" (if you understand the ephuamism) or outdoor appearances. However, the amount of boys to whom this appeals for any duration of time is limited.

Yes, many relationships may be formed due to lust - if it is even that in adolesence - but how many last? A lasting relationship is something that requires more than just lust. It requires something that will last and survive over periods of time. I can think of at least one example from my various groups of close friends, and myriads of others that I can't prove from webpals, friends from old schools and other things I've seen elsewhere.

In fact, thinking about it, to get off of adolesence for all of a few seconds, look at my family. My parents have been married for what... 23 years now? Something like that. I think that they have something that's more than just lust or good friendship.

The problem is that the market for girls is getting more and more competitive. Boys are always demanding more and more from girls. The idea that a girl should be something to be displayed and put in a corner when not in use and stored/handled carefully belongs to the 20th century. Now, and this is - once again - something I've seen reflected in many places, boys expect more than that. Although, of course, it takes them time TO notice that. However, despite this, the idea of the idea that boys should aspire to having the physical adaptation of a beautiful thing hanging off of their arm and other various parts of their anatomy still exists.

Leading to girls suffering bouts of "Am I ugly" syndrome and other similar nasty things. The problem comes, unforntunately, with the male attitude that it's less manly to go out with a girl that doesn't have looks. I have no idea what it's like amongst those in the upper limits of their teenage years, but certainly at 15 (for all of an hour and 5 minutes now) I can see that this "manliness" idea is still thriving. Until they find someone that provides much more than surface and then forget it all.

Girls; forget everything that you hear about boys. We do care if you have a nice brain, and a wonderful personality.

Or should that be that I care if you have a wonderful personality? I'm not so sure about the rest of mankind, although - to be frank - if they can only see the surface then maybe then aren't exactly the person for you anyway? Find someone that appreciates you (don't look at me.. my hearts already on the unachieveable. As always. Although, of course, the unachieveable is unachievable until someone achieves it...) and then force them to love you. Manipulate them into it and enjoy life. You deserve to relax and enjoy it sometime.

God knows that I don't relax and enjoy life until I've achieved it all, and once I've achieved it all my next ambition will be to create something to achieve...


Person A's unsurety about Person G is something that is reflected in every boy under the age of about 16 that is or isn't going out with someone. The question isn't normally "Do they love me?" (although, in some cases, this is naturally different) but "Do I love them?" Teenage boys always suffer these bouts of unsurety, although it is admittedly normally when a new short skirt walks past that takes knee-length another few centimetres up past the knee and into a few more realms of grey areas.

Although any girl that has a grey area in that particular place is wearing tights.

Just above the knee isn't exactly grey you know! And I bet that you thought that I was talking about something else.

Dirty sods.

Another quick hint for girls (I have no idea why I include these, but y'know...) is that once you've got a boy, make sure that he knows that you love him and then he feels this brilliant urge to love you back. And, of course, if you have a particulary self-confident young lad strapped to your arm then his question will be more like "Do they love me" which is always the best question for ending a relationship if one of you isn't too sure about what to say.

I should know about that.. been there, done that... bought my sister the t-shirt.

No, I didn't actually buy the t-shirt. My big sister had enough money to spend and she'd already wasted all of mine of stuff for me that wasn't what I wanted to spend it on.

Can't imagine WHY she doesn't consider computer games a reasonable way to spend money.

Can't be that she doesn't approve.

Can it?

Another quick note

While I'm thinking about it:

The site I advertsied earlier is now dead and crashed. Jy (my friend who runs it) has some normal excuse for it, and I'll get round to posting a new link as soon as they tell me it.

Just a quick check

Is it just me or was yesterday's blog buggy?

I got these wierd thingies on my comptuer... just my computer or is other peoples doing it as well?

25th September

It's just so happened that today, when I got in from school, my dad was on the phone. Not that this is unusual mind, but what I do find slightly irritating is his way of saying "Well Stephen can do this and that at such and such a time." I'm not exactly a great person who goes to lots and lots of social events, but even I am aware that you can't just organise things for other people without asking them first.

I mean, despite what I just said, I generally do do a fair bit at weekends and after school, so just organsing stuff isn't a clever thing to do. At least, if you're planning on me turning up and actuall doing it. Also, I understand that short-term notice things aren't exactly the politest of things. I mean, my old school sent me a letter in the post (dated 22nd September) that read "Please can your child help out at our open evening on the 30th September? Sign here, send back. Thank you."

Now, since the first week or so of the new school term I've had my new school (who are very quick when it comes to stealing people away from their free time and giving them stuff to do, especially when I don't complain too much) shotgunning that date and saying that THEIR open evening is then. First come first served, and I can't be in two different places at once. Maybe if they'd asked me back in July - before I left - something could have been done, and my new school would be mucked up when it comes to finding someone to mess around playing the piano in the background of wherever it is that they're putting me.

My old school do tend to expect that they come first served even if they're last in the queue.... A slight problem that is annoying at times.

The other thing that has managed to iccur my irritation today - which seems to be a more and more frequent phrase I'm using... either to confuse people or just for fun - is the fact that some girls tried to hurt me on the bus today. Pinching, punching, grabbing and twisting and more besides all on my left arm has left a series of indentations and marks up of it. I mean.. it's not my fault that I was trying to stop them from getting by so that they couldn't bully the people in front of me.

I hate defending people, they hardly ever show the proper gratitude for me being generally cut up like a piece of meat on a butcher's slab. I should probably learn to lie and let lie, but I can't. Protectiveness is the name of the game, although the game part of that is up for lots and lots of debate.

I have just noticed, which I always seem to do on these things, just how serious my blog seems to have become recently. It's hardly the same light heartedness that was around at the very beginning.

I'm not entirely sure why it's not so light hearted, and why it doesn't make me laugh so much as it did when I first wrote it. Maybe it's because I've sobered up a little and aren't finding so much amusing. I have really got to find something to amuse myself... or someone to drain off my melanchony and depression.

Although, on that note of finding something to amuse me, my big sister just got back from school (as she goes boarding school.) She has decided, already, that my weekend is going to be spent in the local slightly larger town shopping for clothes. With my money. Which I was going to spend on something vaguely useful... say a computer monitor, or a few computer games. The normal sort of things.

The conversation went something like this:

Me: (hugging her with laptop in hand) Hello Frances!

Frances: (turns round) What?!?! Don't say that laptop is yours?

Dad: I told you she'd say that

Me: Erm, yeah.. it's mine

Frances: That's just... not fair!

Dad: It was being thrown out.

Frances: Stephen, we're going to go shopping and buy you some decent clothes

Me: When? I'm doing stuff this weekend?

Frances: And? We're going to go and buy some clothes anyway.

Dad: There's a slight problem, clothes cost money.

Frances: Stephens got some haven't you Stephen

Dad: I thought he was going to buy some computer bits and...

Frances: Nah, he can spend his money on something more important than that.

Me: So why do I need new clothes?

Frances: So you can look sexy! How's the girlfriend?

Me: She's just.. not?

Frances: So you need to look even sexier then!

If you haven't guessed, my big sister (Frances) is one of those people who just waltzes into your life and takes everything away from you, such as money and spare time, without you being able to voice a reasonable complaint in the face of what she's saying. It's increasingly useful when she's NOT using this tactic on me, but when I don't get a say in the matter it's a little perplexing and irritating to say the least.

She amuses me as well, I mean... she has the same sort of sense of humour as I do - sort of - and therefore much of what she says is seen as funny by me, in one way or another. Although she doesn't always intend for it to be funny. Frances also has a tendency to be irritating. I mean.. anyone that chooses to play the biggest instrument in an orchestra (excepting, prehaps, a grand piano and a set of Timpani) and then go to a school 200 miles away HAS to be irritating right?

It's the entire harp player thingy. She makes nice music, that everyone likes, gets paid more than I do for playing the organ (which she also does, although not as well as me, obviously. I'm the organist, she's the harpist.), and who still manages to be amusing. I'm not entirely sure how mucked up her life is, but it certainly SEEMS less mucked up than mine.

Although, at the moment, that's not exactly too hard at the moment.

I think part of my amusement at my sister is her basic presumption that I see a "fit" girl walk down the street and various parts of my anatomy become uncomfortable.

I mean.. doesn't everyone get irritated by sweaty hands?

It's not entirely true... I have this amazing tendency to just ignore girls. And fashion. And hairstyles. And anything that I don't think really reflects all that much of a person unless they choose how they want to look, instead of what they think will look good. If that makes any sense at all, which it probably doesn't.

Many of my female friends can't believe that I'm this apathetic about it all. I can't decide whether it's my attitude that they're shocked by, or that I'm doing it all by accident and that they think it's all on purpose. I honestly think it's the first one, but as I have no idea what "fashion" is I couldn't reliably comment.

Not that that'll stop me mind, but y'know.

Apart from their obsession with fashion and dress sense, I also have to wonder about girls choices of webnames. I mean... I choose a nice simple one. Mediaboy. In the vast majority of cases I get called "media" and the boy bit is just ignored. Like I said before, it's not who you are that matters on the web. It's what you are, and how you be what you are. No one cares that I'm a boy. However, I fail to see where the name "Zelandor" comes from. If it's even spelt like that.

I mean.. How many different ways of spelling Zelandor are there? 20? 30? Remembering that, in many cases, due to funny accents; many of the vowels in that last bit can be swapped around, changed, mucked up and more besides. And you could have an 'E' on the end of all of those possible permutations as well.

It's stupid! I can't even begin to guess at what it is, as the above spelling is incorrect. So how am I supposed to do stuff like add them as a contact on youtube? Or any other of the millions of things shich they probably don't go on, know about or would care about if they did know about them.

At least mediaboy can only be spelt two ways.. Mediaboy and Mediaboi. To the best of my knowledge, as of September last year, Mediaboi is an american girl, aged around 14 or 15 who sucks majorly at playing the onlines games she tries and fails at playing.

I won the argument about who was on which game first by decimating her armies, her alliance, her nation and a few other things that stood between me and wiping her off of the game. It was one of the better moments of my gaming life. I'm sure I'm a girl basher or something for it, but can you really compare real life punching of a girl to decimating their virtual selves? I mean... everyone knows that the virtual world is more important right?

I'm sure that those that care about these things, and that have read this from day one (basically no one) probably already know about Destructoid's wonderful golden rules of gaming. Which I probably broke half a dozen copyright regulations by giving a quote from them and not giving a link immediately after. Is very bad on me. I'll get someone to punish me tommorrow... in some way or another.

The first bad thing that happens is punishment! It's agreed upon. Note that whatever happens tommorrow to me could be interpreted, by someone, as a bad thing happening to me, so even if I have the best day possible tommorrow and everything happens how I want it to happen (which would be amazing as, like many teenage boys who develop the strangest of feelings, I have no idea what I want to happen) it could be seen as me being spoilt, therefore leading up to a worse day, therefore meaning that the best day is in fact the second worst day. Or the worst.

Laws of relativity can't really apply in that sort of situation can they?

I often wonder why we have scientific laws. I mean.. laws exist to be broken. Until the point at which they are broken, they are nothing more than black and white pieces of paper or little dots on a screen that we interpret using a highly complex and developed organ.

Or our fingers, if we are blind and unable to read through use of our eyes. Unless you could SMELL the difference in white and black pixels on a screen.. which would be kind of cool, but I think that playing games with millions of colours might just be a little hectic. Could you imagine the overload you'd get from a 2048x2048 hack on Oblivion or something? It's only about 4 and a half million pixels after all.......

So, anyway, these scientific laws only exist because we have to discover things that break them. Take, for instance, the general theory of relativity which was developed by Einstein because of the slight problem of the Specific theory of relativity (the original one) only working in earth gravities. I'm not sure how this was worked out, but I got it off of a reliable source (wikipedia) so it must be true.

Like everything you read online.

And watch on television or hear on radio, if - for some reason - this is being shown or read out on either or those two, which is a situation which could be potentially embarresing, but which would hopefully net me lots of money.

Then I could go shopping with my sister and get myself a nice new laptop and give her this one! Yeah... I'm sure she'd be real pleased with a hand-me-down laptop that's falling to pieces!

A phrase I have just thought about (for all of 2 seconds) is the phrase "Anything is better than Nothing."

I'd have to disagree. Lots.

There are some girls on this planet who, if I was the last man on earth, would cause me to let the human race die out rather than prolong it through other means. I'm not going to mention names, as I value my life too highly. I'm sure that they don't know who they are, and I wish to keep it that way. Apart from those who I tease endlessly about this, and for whom I don't actually mean it. I apologise.

Unless I actually do hate you, in which case ignore that exception.

There are also some situations where nothing is better than anything. I mean... would you want a pile of horse shit lying around on your front garden? Admittedly, it's fertiliser, but if you don't have anything TOO fertilise, I'm sure that you'd be much happier with nothing. Also, I'm sure that there's times when you'd be happier on your own, rather than with anything. Having a rabid dog as your only friend on an island in the middle of the lake wouldn't be much fun.

Or rather, it would probably be hillarious. And fatal.

I'm sure that some people could find a way round the inevitable fatality though and just come off raving mad. In SOME cases I wouldn't notice much difference. The occasional tendency to go insane at the sight of water and be unable to drink through normal means would be something that's considered normal behaviour for a friend or two of mine.

There's also some situations where you can have too much of anything. I'm sure that those that read my blog understand this perfectly. I mean.. it's too much of whatever comes into my head, partly because too much goes on in my head and partly because I can't be bothered to edit it.

Ooh! I get to go and clean my teeth.

I guess that I'l leave it here for tonight, and think up some new topics for tommorrow. Sounds like fun.

24th September: A little more about me

Today's a Wednesday, and anyone that knows and cares and remembers about things in my life will know that today is the day when I have pantomine rehearsals from a quarter to eight till ten o'clock. I'm sure I mentioned this last week (and having a quick look through it, it seems I did) but a week is a long time, and probably millions of pages and characters long. I tend to ramble slighty.

As I mentioned last week, on the 18th - which wasn't a week, but is the closest I get because I didn't write on the 17th because of pantomine - I don't really do much at pantomine, but sit there being amused.Today, however, was unusual. I got to draw on someone's school planner. And all over a different person's french books. And steal that person's food. And be amused at them falling over at the back of the stage.

I'm sure it's not that nice of me to laugh at her but I can't help it. After Charlotte has finished killing me, she's probably going to have a go at it. And the worrying thing is that even if Charlotte suceeded that she'd probably find someway of bringing me back from the dead JUST to kill me again.

I do, however, have some reasons for endlessly teasing this girl from panto...

I mean... she stole my heart.

Which can be misinterepreted in soo many ways. I love misleading and redirecting people.

To verify that statement a little, I have this insatiable lust for haribos. I would eat them endlessly, but I don't have the money nor the time to do so. However, I buy a pack on the way home from jazz band at school on Teusdays (as I go to catch the train), and take it to panto on Wednesday for something to eat. As everyone knows, Haribo's are for sharing, and therefore I HAVE to offer them round. I'm a "gentlemen" after all. Although the gentle bit is up for debate.

Also, as everyone knows, you're supposed to select a selection of haribos, not sit there eating the hearts. I mean... she likes the heart thingies... I don't know why, and I'm not going to speculate on her trains of thought. I'm being murdered by her for enough things as it is. And as she loves hearts she eats them! I don't mind too much, but she went and ate the last one in the packet.

I don't know.. stealing MY heart... it's not allowed, but I'm not going to ask for it back. Who knows where it's been?

Grace will have fun trying to make sense of that last little section. She normally does.


I've just noticed that, for some bizzarre reason, that most of my blog is about girls. I'm sure that, at some point over this entire thing, I've said that I'm not the typical teenage boy that is obsessed with girls, so I have to ask myself a very simple question. Why is this entire thing about them? Those things that dominate about 52% of the known human race, have their own private sisterhood and never seem to make sense.

To be totally honest, I'm not entirely sure. I write this as it comes into my head, not to any particular plan or device or other similar way of ensuring that it makes sense logically and gramatically. So let's play the game "What am I thinking?"

For those that don't know the rules, it's fairly simple. It's basically a bigger version of the game "What number am I thinking of?" where you choose a number between 1 and 10 and everyone tries to guess it by "reading your mind." It's a not very good way of totally wasting your time. Like most other games. However, the game "What am I thinking?" as it is bigger and better than the other one I mentioned, whose name is a right pain to type on a laptop due to the funny location of quotation makrs, is a lot more fun.

Let's start with the nice and simple things that are definite facts.

1) This blog is supposed to help me think
2) This blog was started at the suggestion of a girl
3) This blog is read mostly by girls
4) I reveal more and more to myself about myself than I ever thought existed as I write this thing.
5) My life is so convulted and full of twists and turns that a bypass has been built round it.
6) My lovelife is even worse. Enough said, for those that know what the hell I'm going on about.
7) I'm one of the strangest and randomest people you'll ever not meet.
8) I only speak the truth to two people on this planet, who normally don't want to know it and so don't ask me to tell it.

So, if I was someone that wasn't myself what would my conclusion be? Personally, I think that I'd be considering going and doing something more interesting other than trying to break into people's minds through the use of cold logic, but we're talking about people like all you wierdos that actually want to get into my head.

Starting at the top, let's make some basic presumptions.

As this blog is supposed to help me think, it would make sense that whatever I write about I am thinking about. Therefore, if girls get a mention fairly frequently it's because that's what I'm thinking about fairly frequently. Also, as this was started at the suggestion of a girl, and read mostly by girls, it could be said that I'm helping girls to understand how boys think. A scary prospect. What will boys do when they can't deny that they fancy/love/other similar action a girl?

As I am partly revealing this to reveal my own emotions to myself - as my way of coping with emotions is by simply ignoring them and doing what the sensible option is normally, instead of the one that would naturally be impulsive - it could be argued that anything said in this blog isn't written for anyone but for me, and that this is more along the lines of a diary where I'm careful not to reveal anything too much for the fear of someone reading it and drawing a few lines in the right places at the wrong time, or the wrong places at the right time.

Due to my life being totally mucked up, not just in normal circumstances, but - as I put above - in terms of my lovelife (which is a phrase which never seems to be that good to me really) it could also be argued that anything I write down is as a way of proving to myself that I'm not a total loser that is going to lose out on everything in life. Despite that being just about the truth and not much else really applying.

Finally, the last two points counteract just about everything I just said, because all of the above just doesn't make sense if you take into account my normal stream of half-truths and concealments, my total randomity, my normal abnormality and all the other character defects that I somehow manage to make into a unique personality that shows the world just how fucked up I actually am. Although some people, for a reason I've not managed to work out, completely disagree with this last paragraph and would say that the other ones make more sense if you take into account other things that I've said.


I have to feel sorry for anyone that is reading this and that isn't a part of my everyday life. I mean... quite a lot of the references and little stories I tell will bring up half a dozen memories and other little stories that all compliment my story when you start to think of it how I think of it. Also, many of the little hints I drop here and there will be completely passed over by those that don't know what I'm on about (which is most of everyone)

The fact that most of the little hints I drop here and there are completely passed over by everyone, including those that do know what I'm on about (or SHOULD know), is besides the point.


Writing a more serious blog like this one always makes me start to think about my life and just how much it's totally messed up. I'm not messed up on the same level as other people that I know, but my way of coping is to bury it, instead of dealing with it. Therefore everything explodes all at once, leading to rather spectacular things.

On a more serious note, there's not much that I can say about my life that doesn't prove how mucked up it is. I play the piano, but I don't do any jazz or modern music. I play the organ, but I can't do any practise. I can't play that many sports, I can't admit my feelings, I can't do lots of things.

When one of my friends died, about 7 months ago now, it was like being hit by a steamroller. It was literally a matter of one moment I thought that they were in hospital, fine apart from a few problems, the next moment I'm in shock, unable to believe it's actually true. I was pretty much useless for the rest of the day, although because buried it quite well after the initial shock many people just didn't realise how affected I was by it.

When my uncle died, a few years ago, it took weeks for it to hit me, and then it all came at once. How I wouldn't see him again, how he wouldn't be able to do this or that, and a few other things as well. Just thinking back on what these people were like brings, and although I'm sure it's unmanly of me to say it, tears to my eyes. They aren't quite flowing down my cheeks, but I'm sad.

It seems, for some reason, that I'm welling up more and more recently. I don't know why, but everything reminds me of a sad moment in my life. Pieces of music, comments that people say, what people do. All of them affect me in one way or another. It's awful, and I just can't cope with it. Which is probably why the entire situation has cropped up in the first place.

Feeling lonely prehaps the biggest problem. When I changed schools at the beginning of this academic year, it was a harder blow than many people realised. I left behind friends, I left behind entire groups of people that knew my family, I left behind a reputation, a way of living my life. I had to readapt to everything, with new music lesson times, a new music teacher, new ways of timetabling everything. Everything changing at once made me realise just how much I'd settled into a familiar pattern.

Despite my many complainings to my friends about how my family name followed me round like a bad smell, I miss the moment of recognition the moment my last name is said. Despite my many complaints about how late I got home on a Friday, I miss the time of getting back home and going straight out to a choir - which I have now left. The familiarity of my friends is also something I miss... they had got used to me being me, and were fairly tolerant of it.

Now, I have to moderate it all. I can't just speak without thinking, as many of the things I say without thought can be taken in so many different ways that they'll automatically be taken in the worst way possible because that's what they expect to hear. The other thing I suppose I miss is the total randomity of the group of girls that tended to be standing around somewhere at my old school, and the way that you got involved in everyone's conversations, whether or not you wanted to.

Those at my new school seem a little more aware of things like personal privacy. They don't have this same openess, this same friendliness with me that other people have. Maybe it's a newboy syndrome thingy, or just a different way of life.

It's irrelevant, whatever it is, it's making me lonely. I don't know how I cope, but I have to admit that my brain does a wonderful job of regulating speech and action. I've not made too many accidental mistakes, and I've made just about the right number of purposeful mistakes for people to start wondering just how sane I am, and just how I think. It's an entirely different way of thinking about how I act, that some people should take note of.

It's not what I do, or what I say, it's the reasons behind it that are important.

Everything I do, no matter how random, inappropiate or normal what I say seems, it normally has an ulterior motive. Of one kind or another. I keep on getting told to lighten up around boys and be more serious around girls... what the person that instructs me to do this hasn't quite realised yet, is that I have a bigger and better plan in the works that explains everything.

A masterplan as it were.

The problem, however, with the masterplans is that they have this amazing tendency to go wrong. The masterplans rely on so many things happening in the right way at the right time that the littlest of things - such as dropping a pen accidentally - can muck it up. I'm sure that you're all wondering what this means, so I'll elaborate a little.

On the path to whatever, if part of the the masterplan is to impress someone, then being bent over double picking up a pen isn't the best of ways to do it. In the same way that dropping a pen when trying to be clever would have to be passed off as a character accentuation instead ofa character defect.

However, even if all the smallest of things go right, generally masterplans make several assumptions. If those assumptions are the tiniest bit wrong the entire plan is skewed and therefore doesn't work. It has happened to me before, although many people wouldn't have seen it the same way that I do, and are now wondering what I'm going on about.

I should probably post a solution to the little puzzle I put up yesterday, but instead I'm going to add a few more people to the mix.


Aside from Persons A-G, there's a few other of the 150 people in the room.

Person H is a gossip. She tends to know about everything and anything, including rumours. Therefore, because of this, many things which she says are taken to be not entirely true or logical, and for the most part she is ignored. It should, however, be remembered that despite many people ignoring gossips, they also begin to doubt their own thoughts on any topic which is gossiped about, because someone is disagreeing. Subtle disagreeement is often one of the best ways of persuading someone to change their minds on a given topic.

Person I is Person H's boyfriend. He provides her with rumours from the male population of the room, and is aware of Person A and the fact that Person A hugs his cards. He doesn't particulary like the group of A,B,C and D and would seize any available opportunity to discredit them, or simply to give them a bad reputation. He is mostly disliked by the population, as no one likes anyone that makes up rumours just to hurt other people, which Person I has done previously.

Person J is the bully of the room, who seemingly has no purpose in life but to make other peoples lives a misery. This is obviously something in common with Person G, although Person G does it by lack of choice, wheras Person J does it through totallu conscious choice. The different is subtle, but it exists.


So, with today's extra characters thrown into the mix, I suppose that I'm not going to get any more solutions.

I suppose that I could apply some logic to it tommorrow and start constructing some sort of reply, but I've not actually worked one out yet.

There's no such thing as a wrong answer, merely one that isn't right.

23rd September

Blogging, it would seem, is addictive. I started this as something to do when bored, but it seems that most of my life is devoted to writing it. Or playing computer games. Blogging, it would also seem, is contagious. Once one person starts blogging, everyone copies them. Or me in this case.

It may just be that they all feel this urge to copy me, but to be honest, that isn't really that good a reason. However, it's one of the best reasons I've found for why lots of the people I talk to on MSN seem to all want to start a blog. None of them write as much as me, or in the same style (as mine is.... unique... prehaps with unique being the best word to describe it), but they are all writing pretty much the same sort of thing. In principal.

The other thing that I've noticed is that my english teacher seems to think that I write lots and lots, and that for some reason I am interested in writing. The 50 page version of this can't have had anything to do with it. Honest! I mean, it's not like I was asking her to do much.. just proofread it, mark it, give me feedback. She's had a week and she's not got round to it. It's somewhat amusing.

However, I'm getting off of the topic, whatever the topic originally was, so I'll change it! Sounds like a good idea to me.

This morning I saw something wierd. Okay, sex in public has been seen before... people being hit by trains has been seen before... but a mix up of the two? I'll say that in basic english... two africans having sex on a railway line in a railway station in broad daylight, got run over by the express train that didn't see them until too late. Now of all the things to do on a railway line, having sex has got to be the worst. I mean, a train goes by at least every 10-20 minutes where I live, and so any sex that happened on the railway line would have to be quicker than that. And given that you'd have to get on and off of the railway line in plenty of time (say... 1-2 minutes each end) then you're looking at not very long at all.

I'm sure it's fine for some people, but I can't comment on how likely it is that they'll get runover. Judging from comments I've seen from people on the web, the probability of getting run over is fairly high. If not definite.

It's something new I suppose, and at least they'll get something. A darwin award prehaps. Although they WERE procreating, so I'm not entirely sure if the darwin awards will apply....


Today I had to wonder something that could quite possibly affect me for the rest of my life. Like just about everything else that happens in my life. I was quite innocently listening in on conversations - just like all well brought up boys - and I discovered just how much importance girls attatch to knowing each other's secrets. I mean... the moment they know that another girl HAS a secret, they'll bug her for most of the day trying to find it out, getting upset because someone else knows and they don't, and that they want to know.

I mean.. it's totally different to the male attitude. For the most part, males will accept that some people will be told and that other's won't and therefore won't give a damn if they don't know one of their friends secrets. Maybe this is due to the fact that boy and males, as a rule, tend to not develop such close relationships with each us as girls do with each other. Not that girls are lesbians, but they can have closer relationships without everyone screaming "GAYS" down the corridor, as opposed to boys, who can barely do anything like comfort the one sobbing in a corner 'cus he just got dumped without having people scream the same word down the corridor.

However, I do have to wonder why girls spend most of their time hugging each other. You watch a girl walk into a room where another girl is standing or sitting, the first thing that they'll do is hug. Nearly always. The exception is in a few girls who just don't hug anyone or anything, excepting the occasional boy or girl depending on sexuality. Or both if they're bisexual.

Forgetting about the few girls who are the exception, I'm sure that most boys have noticed it, and in some cases wished that they were one of those two girls - for obvious reasons, and have often wondered just why girls feel the need to hug every living thing, and occasionally a few humans as well. I think it's because they need to spread the love, or the female sisterhood, or some other cult ideal, but I could be wrong. Totally wrong.

However, my ideas are backed up by a good friend of mine, who I've mentioned countless times before (about 5 I think) called Charlotte. She says that, "It's a sign that they are good friends.. like boys give friends... and we all work together against this species called men." What further proof is needed that all girls are secretly trying to imprison and control all men? I'm half expecting a female version of the SAS to burst in through the windows to "remove" me so that I can't spread sedition. Or the truth. Which generally comes down to the same thing in the modern world.

While I'm thinking about it, and as someone mentioned it to me, I don't think that many boys, in their right minds, would ever want to go to an all boys school. I mean... forget about the higher grades and stuff that you're SUPPOSED to get at those schools, I'm sure that they have behavioural problems. And bullying problems. And lack of universal love problems.

There's also a lack of "scenery" for the boys to look at. Forget about staring at clouds and trees, the average boy is more interested in finding the girls PE lesson that's going on on the field so that they have something interesting to watch instead of paying any attention to the male maths teacher that has a bald spot and not really anything that good to say. In the same way, any teacher that has the prudence to sit the "hottest" girl in the class at the front of it will have the rapt attention of most of the male population (excepting those, that like me, see more than just what's on display.)

In single sex schools, whether male or female, I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of their time is spent discussing the opposite sex. Gender. Whatever you want to call it. I mean... boys will pull out their phones, download some videos and watch. Girls will just talk, and talk, and talk. About how one boys hair is better than the others, and oh - how nice that boys smile is, and how he makes me laugh. I'm sure that girls will know what I'm talking about, but that the average teenage boy is wondering just what the hell I'm on about.
Not that any average teenage boys read this, but that's besides the point. I'm sure that if any did, that they'd all be struck down by my sheer awesomeness and inability to realiably talk about any given topic for more than a page or two.

For some bizzarre reason - so one that has a perfectly logical explanation that I've not thought of yet - my brain has run off and decided to think about game videos. Not ones of people playing games, that'd just be boring... but videos made using games. Such as the all famous Red versus Blue series made by Roosterteeth (although all famous is debatable) and a few others as well, whose names don't spring to mind becase they aren't really series.

I think there's a Battlefield 2 Parody of one of the Top Gear episodes.. where a jeep races a tank across a battlefield.. but I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to check.

Now, the thing is about these things, is that they are instant free promotions for the games... but the game producers complain about breaches of copyright! If someone offered to give you a million pounds, would you take it or report the person offering it for having too much money? Or for something else along those lines... something that is possibly a crime.

I'm no great shakes at stuff like that, but I know for certain that if someone offered to advertise me as a decent organist/pianist to people that might just hire me at a nice high rate of pay and make me lots of money I wouldn't be turning it down due to a few legal problems with it. It's a bit hard to find an exact metaphor for it.. I'm sure that you appreciate why. I mean, it's not everyday that I have to think up a metaphor for something like this.


Dropping that topic, let's talk about something else. The reason for the abrupt topic change, which seems unusual for me - as I normally ramble on for a ream or two of paper, is that I suddenly got sidetracked. I was talking to the original proofreader of this entire thing, whose some random person whom I know as Bastock (from online), and we got round to having a semi-serious conversation. Somehow.

Bastock: I would blog, but I know no-one would care, and i'm the kind of person that likes keeping cards close to my chest.
Me: It's not that I keep cards close to my chest, but rather that they're face down on the table.

The conversation goes on, but that's the important bit. It demonstrates exacty how two people think in entirely different ways. As anyone that has ever played poker will no, there's two types of people. There's those that keep the cards on the table and only look at them when necessary, and turn them over last. And there's those that hug the cards, keeping them close to the chest and trying to hide them, until the point when they have to show at which point they throw them down dramatically and start trying to rake in chips.

There's also those that carry most of a pack up their sleeve, but they don't achieve much in life. Famous popstar, footballer, maybe a politician. Not really anything that important or worthwhile. Just a job where brain cells aren't a neccessity.

Now the difference is that those that hug the cards don't wait to see what everyone else is doing (although in Bastock's case he doesn't show, and tries not to play cards with life) and just throw it down and automatically presume that they've won. They get satisfied, and their overall confidence is skyhigh. It comes out as more than just confidence as as someone else.

Those that don't pick up the cards are different. They let everyone see that they HAVE the cards, but not what those cards are. Not that anyone sees cards in poker anyway, so the metaphor doesn't work entirely.

To put it into a real life situation, I'll let people know a few hints and trickles of information. Enough to let them know that I'm in the game, and that I've got cards hiding somewhere. In effect, putting the cards on the table, but not letting anyone see them but a few people who are on your team. I wait for other people to show their "cards" or whatever metaphor you want to use, and then use my cards based on what they've got.

Those that would rather hug and show the cards then keep them close to their chest/hidden are what I would call pawns. The strategists, or those that manipulate the game - like I try to occasionally - use them fairly easily, as they know what those people are going to do and what cards they are going to play. They're not exactly that important

Those that manipulate, however, have a much harder task when everyone hides their cards. I mean, it's also a case of chinese whispers. Let's go into the world of philoshopy and 'gendaken' experiments for a while... on a fairly small scale so you don't get confused.

You have 150 people in the room. But to simplify things I'm only going to use a few of tem.

Person A hugs his cards. He carries them round with him all the time, but let's his close friends - including say, a few girls, the normal assortment of boys and so on - see them, or parts of them. He fancies Person G. He is mostly fairly open about his emotions, but around Person G clams up, and doesn't talk. He is obviously embarressed around her, and therefore is a fairly easy person to read. However, due to his many attempts at hiding his "cards" he has managed to mostly conceal this from the world.

Person B is a close friend of Person A. He knows most of the cards in Person A's hand, and passes on information - including stuff which he doesn't know for sure, but is only guessing at - to other people in fairly obvious hints. This part-information that he has isn't always totally accurate, and therefore any information taken from him is suspect. He never seems to fall in love, being able to distance himself from his emotions. However, it has been seen that he has avoided saying things in the group of friends of A, B, C and D. Those things are unknown, because - afterall - they aren't said.

Person C is a female friend of Person A and B. She fancies Person B, but because her cards are hidden in plain sight on the tabletop, no one knows. She is a total unknown for nearly everyone else, and has problems discussing personal things such as that. She does, however, treat Person B entirely differently to everyone else - showing kindness and thoughtfulness that is often unexpected and unsought from from her.

Person D is also a friend of A+B+C. She has had this mad crush on Person A for a long time, but thanks to Person B is aware that Person A has his eyes fixed on a different target. However, this hasn't dissuaded her from attempting to discredit Person G all the time, in an attempt to make Person G seem less of the type of person that Person A is seeing in her.

Person E is a totally unknown figure. He has no idea what his role in this game of cards is, and doesn't have any cards to play himself. He can only play other people's cards at random, being able to guess at certain facts and come to generally logical and truthful conclusions that are mostly denied as people keep their cards close to their hands. He carries packs of cards up his sleeves in effect, and - in many cases - what he says is considered to be the truth. It puts him in a position of power over many other people.

Person F is another unknown. She has next to no idea what is going on, and for this reason is trusted with knowing some of the intimate details of other people's relationships. Although this may sound wierd and unusual, she has no noticeable crush on anyone, acts pretty much identically around most people and therefore is seen as the ultimate confident. She, therefore, has learnt how to say not very much in lots of talking.

Person G is the object of desire for most of the male population, and a few of the female ones. She has no noticeable crush on anyone - prehaps due to the fact that to show that she favoured one over another would mean that the rest lose heart and that she loses the attention she gains from being the object of desire. It is unknown what would happen should she lose the desire from the male population due to any reason.


So tell me... as a person manipulating this situation, how would you do it and why? Get the most satisfiable result for most of the people. Obviously, no one is going to be totally happy with what happens, as not everyone can be pleased (that is, not everyone as in the group of everyone, but some people are permamently unhappy.) I'll post how I'd do it sometime after some people have told me how they'd handle it. So you've got plenty of time to reply.

No one reads this much of any of my blog posts!

21st September

I should probably be doing my homework. Afterall, after I've done it, I get to eat a chocolate bar. The point is that I don't really want to be doing the subject, or whatever, as it's the one that I took because I HAD to take it, not because I particulary wanted to. ANother thing to be mentioned about it is the sheer effort which it requires to actually do it. It takes up about 1/15 of my timetable, but about 4/5 of my time spent doing homework.. which is fairly awful. I mean, seriously, you'd think that all your homework would be in proportion to your timetable.

However, talking about homework bores me, and probably bores all my readers. However many of them I currently have. Probably next to none knowing how little I advertise this.It's not like I wave a flag around saying "I'm a blogger! Read my blog!"

Okay, maybe I do, but not in public and not in anywhere too private either. There's a few people that know what I'm going on about. One that I can think of, including myself.


I have to say, friends are amongst the wierdest things that exist in this universe. They can insult you, say it's a joke and you're fine with it. They can compliment you, in one way or another, and no one starts drawing lines of lovehearts around it. They can whack you, punch you, kick you in the bollocks, stab you in the back and a simple apology nearly always suffices. Aren't friends wonderful things?

Now the few people I regard as friends, most of whom know that I'm talking about them, are hardly priveleged. They get to hear me ramble on and on and on and on and on. Hardly the most fun of things. I also have a tendency to go beserk occasionally, beating up walls, buildings and whatever else is in between me and whatever I think is making me angry. However, if you can look past all of these small faults in me (well.... large faults, but it comes down to the same thing in the end) then you still have to wonder just why they're friends with me.

I'm not particulary funny to most of the world, my sense of humour being practically unique, I'm not that protective (generally speaking, although I'll defend some people should the need arise), nor that kind. So why do these people like me? I don't know. I'll ask some of them later, and get the normal responses that people say when I ask them.. Things like "you're funny!" or "You cheer me up!" or the other generic responses.

I've heard them all, just about, excepting the ones which I haven't heard and therefore don't know about. It makes sense. Think about it.

Unless you're incapable of thinking about it, in which case just ignore it. And accept it.

Apart from wondering why I have friends at all, I also have learnt to appreciate the difference between a friend and a hanger-on. I don't often get hanger-ons, but you can tell when someone is a hanger-on and when their actually trying to be friendly. Same way that you can tell whether or not someone is genuinely being friendly, or whether or not they're trying to be nasty in some ulterior way that you can't quite pick up. It's all to do with the tone of voice.

Aside from this, I aso have learnt to appreciate what friends I do have. They put up with me, they provide me with light amusement and don't run off screaming when I talk to them. Well, a few excepting. For the most part, for some bizzarre reason, my friends be mostly girls. At the moment. It could be seen as quite worrying. I do, luckily, have an explanation.

Girls have a tendency to hang onto old friendships when they change schools. They form better and longer lasting relationships, and therefore will keep in contact. They seek continuity and familiarity in older faces and people, and therefore... you get the idea. It goes on and on. In actuality, it's much simpler.. they don't understand boys, so get to know them better so that they can - in the case of at least two of the people that regulary speak to me, whether or not I know them - find out what interests them and the quickest way of getting them to go out with you.

Boys just don't care. They're too busy trying to convince themselves that they're popular, have many friends, are not too hated or disliked, that the girls like them and that the girls like them even more. It's a fairly good picture of the average teenage boy.

Average meaning normal, as opposed to the average tendencies of boys to do things. Normal as in my definition of normal, which is to say - not like me.

So, if you haven't picked up on what I'm getting at so far in this topic, I'm not entirely normal in terms of how much I care about old relationships. I actually prefer continuity, and actually talking to people that already know me so that the occasional wierdness can be forgotten and not remembered constantly. It's probably due to the fact that I'm going to a school where I know, in grand total, one boy. From something I used to do, but then gave up. Yeah.. go me.

The other reason, I suppose, is that I don't make friends that easily, mostly because I think most teenagers are jerks and therefore I won't waste my time with them. Is a harsh attitude, bt y'know.

The scarier thing about my new school, however, is the number of girls that knew me already, or that knew me within about 3 days of me getting there. Girls, like I didn't mention above (but meant to) always are interested in new people, because they might show a new brand of thought or just be a generally nice person. The boys, as I did say above, don't give a damn. They've got better things to do. Girls to rate out of ten, porn sites to find, sexcams to watch, younger people to bully. That sort of thing.

On the subject of porn sites, I would be amazed if, in the current modern world, if anyone could get to age 18 and truthfully say that they have never seen either a member of the opposite sex naked, or that they have seen a picture of aforesaid object. I mean, you go onto nearly every website and there's advertisements for "dating" sites (which is more like a sexshop where everything is free) with naked girls splattered across them.

I suppose that girls will be able to say it more honestly, if they never went to schools or into a sex education class. The subject of sex, and the b-rate porn that goes with it, is one that is watched with avid attention. For some bizzarre reason. It bores me, once you've been on the web so much, and seen so many adverts and pictures and little video clips taking up the sides of webpages, it's just boring. I mean.. there's only SO many pictures that they can splatter across the web before they start repeating themselves.

Well, there's hardly any pictures that they can splatter across the web without repeating themselves now.

I also think that girls have a really hard time of it. I mean, porn is so readily available (from the amount of advertisements I've seen on the web) in so many forms and shapes and sizes and so on, that catching them in the act of watching it is tantamount to them saying "It was an accident." Or scrap that.. how many boys play the Sims, or any other game where you can control females? I mean.. the amount of modding (modification making) that is done on most games to remove blurring of private parts, or simply strip women naked, is frankly worrying.

If all the time spent doing that was spent doing something constructive, say... finding out what the real world is like, then the entire issue would be avoided. Apart from the dirty-minded perverts that sit around watching it 24/7. Joking aside, despite the many repeated references here and there in this blog, I'm not some pervert that spends all his time thinking about girls/women/any other female thing. I have better things to do with my time. It's not too hard to find something better to do with my time.

Besides, you know how insane my parents would go if they ever walked into my bedroom to find me looking at porn?

Quick note for readers: if it bothers you that much, and you really want to look at porn, send me an e-mail with your name and age in it. If you're under 18 you get reported to the police, if you're over 18 and asking me, you really need to start wondering why a perfectly clean 14 year old would know that sort of thing!

My parents would go ballistic at quite a lot of things that I occasionally wish I could do. I mean, I don't have any particular wish to watch porn but, something like borrowing pirate DVDs off of a friend, and cracking games on my computer would save me lots and lots of money. It's also illegal and would eventually cost me lots of money when I got caught. Hence why I don't do it. Despite what I say to many people, there is no reliable way of completely wiping your internet history and so on without completely reformatting the HDD. And even then I wouldn't guarentee it.

It's absolutely amazing how much stuff can be recalled off of a HDD...


I'm currently writing this in my bedroom. On the laptop which I aquired off of someone. I never actually realised how useful a laptop is. For ages I've been saying that laptops are fairly awful, and that they shouldn't be used, but then when I actually get one, I realise just what I've been missing out on. It means that my computer isn't whirring away till midnight as I write the day's blog, and that it's a lot easier to hide just what I'm doing. Because my parents don't want me up till midnight writing a blog obviously.

There are, however, some downsides to this laptop.

One of them is the lack of battery. Having taken this laptop off of someone because they judged it to be next to useless, I then discovered WHY it is considered to be next to useless. The battery doesn't work, so the backup battery (with a lifespan of about 3 minutes when fully charged) is the only non-mains power I have. 3 minutes, by the way, is about enough for me to turn on the laptop. And maybe log in. If I'm lucky. It's no time at all really. The cost of replacing it is about 40 quid... which isn't too bad.

The second one is the lack of a decent amount of Hard Disk Space. If it's totally empty, it's around about 8GB. Or next to nothing. Enough for, say, a 3 hr long dvd, a few hours music and a helluva lot of text documents. Suits my purposes fine I suppose, but would be irritating should I ever decide that I want to play games on this laptop.

Which is next to imposisble anyway, due to a Pentium 2 (at some ridiculoulsy low speed) 128MB RAM and about 2MB Video memory. If it were an athlete it'd be a very fat one, that sits around waddling along at not very fast speeds. To replace the entire laptop is about 100-130 quid. Which is just about affordable if I don't want anything too spectacular.

The final thing that is irritating about it is the lack of a network connection. I have Cat-5e network cabling at home (That is a certain type of network cabling for those that don't know) and was rather hoping to connect this up to the internet sometimes and pull off files and downloads so that I'm not fiddling around with memory sticks all the time. The idea of this computer being a new 8GB memory stick had happened to me, but it's not happening until I find a new network card. Which is about 20-40 quid I think.

So the cost of a new laptop is only slightly more than the cost of getting this one to do anything useful. I don't know what I'm going to do. If my dad can find his old IBM Thinkpad 600 then I'll nick his network card and battery and be fairly happy. It'll avoid a fair cost for the moment, and certainly mean that at some later point I can do something nice with this laptop. Set it to complete a game all on it's lonesome...and watch it take 60 hours to complete a 3 minute level due to my somewhat rubbish level of programming.


I might learn programming actually.

Nothing big, just finish off learning HTML and JavaScript and then maybe learn a little C++ (which is the microsoft thingy) so that I can make and edit webpages and make little irritating popups and stuff like that. I'm guessing that all three, if I have the application and can be bothered, will take anywhere between a weekend and a few weeks to learn. That's each, not combined by the way.

Naturally, once I've got through it all once, I can then go and pick up some nice easy qualifications and then have a few more shiny certificates to put in my folder of qualifications (which seems to grow almost monthly, thanks to musical things and a few other things I do...)


I got a trial at a new job today. I do a little gardening for a friend of my mum's, and my brother used to do the next door neighbours. However, as my brother ran off to uni yesterday, the spot of next-door neighbour gardener has cropped up, and as I'm vaguely experienced (thanks to the friend of my mums) I was told to go and ask if I could have a trial. Not quite as abruptly as that, but that was the general idea.

I got offered a trial at 9am next saturday - presuming the weather isn't too bad, and that I wake up in time. The weather can't be controlled, I can. My alarm will be set, my troubles set to rest and whatever else needs doing before I go to sleep on the friday. I have a very strong wish to get the job, and therefore will apply myself.

It's not just the higher pay of course, it's the other things... like the fact that you get a nice shiny reference, and that you get a few more things to put down on your work experience listing on your CV. Is always useful, and can mean the difference between getting a good job and failing totally. Especially in today's world where you the job market is so competitive that saying you'd murder for a job would be taken literally instead of as a gross overstatement.

Betting that most of you didn't even understand that last bit. It had long words like "of" and "as" in it. They're far too long aren't they? I'll strive to use better, more mentally suited and personality related language when refferring to my blogging in futuristic writings.

Don't you just love confusing people? I'm not entirely sure what that last bit means, or even if it makes sense...


Y'know, I started this entire thing to talk about my feelings so that they're not locked up inside me, but whenever I start thinking about writing about them I then remember "Oh yeah.. this is going to be public" and then avoid the topic studiously. It's probably very bad for me. I mean, straight answers out of me are fairly rare. There's only two people in the entire world who can consistently get straight answers out of me. That's Grace and Dani for those that didn't guess.

As part of the original master plan (see 8th September if you miss the reference) I offered them the chance to get a few questions answered honestly. However, I didn't really like the few bit. It was like putting a price on my friendship.. "I trust you to ask so many questions, and no more besides that"... so I removed the limitations for them. It was probably one of not so good decisions.

I mean, I'm not just going to say " I decided that you don't get that any more as I don't like the fact I have to be honest with my friends." It doesn't quite make sense. The reason it's not a very good decision is that it means, under the terms of my agreement - which I keep to because I'm me and I'm not going to break my moral code just because it's convenient - that any question they ask, whatsoever, I have to answer in the simplest terms possible.

Take, for instance, today. We were talking, rather innoculously, about something and they come out with the question, "So have you found anyone else to fancy yet?" (Or words to that effect.) Now me, forgetting that they have the right to ask and be answered honestly, dodged around the question and then they reminded me. I was a little surprised, and then I remembered. So I had to answer honestly - and no, you perverted little sods, I'm not telling you the answer. Ask nicely and I might give you the answer, but it's unlikey.

Honesty is hard for me. I'm used to not having to talk about my emotions much... even to the small extent in the thing that I just covered above. It's like smashing down walls, something that you don't do that much, and when you do do you generally hurt yourself in one way another.


I am slightly irritated at something I realised on Friday. I realised that I have an extra week of holiday to burn up. And I honestly haven't got the slightest clue what to do with it. As all my friends only have one week holiday (excepting those at my school, who don't count for the purposes of this topic) then I have an extra week during which I'm doing practically nothing at all. Sitting around at home, not really doing much, may sound like fun to many. But to me, whose more realistic, I see that it's going to be boring.

I'll have to think about it. Maybe I'll come up with something by tommorrow....

Night Night all. I'm getting some sleep in before I have to get up and do this homework I was meant to do tonight. Luckily is only ONE drawing. I think.

I hope......

20th Sept: Catching up with Myself

20th Sept

I'm currently quite worried.I'm doing this on a laptop which I aquired off of a friend, as they were chucking it out, so that I can talk to people on MSN at the same time.

And I had a conversation that went like this (I have removed screennames and replaced with real names)

Me: Have you read todays blog? The 18th that is
Charlotte: No. I forgoet
Me: You should, I about to put up 19th and write a new one.
C: Am I in it anymore?
Me: /laughs. You want a mention?
C: Wooooo! Yeah. /laughs.

Now, I'm not exactly that good at things like this, but a blog that no one really reads at all isn't going to give your reputation that much of a boost. If it gives it one at all. You might even get a negative boost, for being so stupid as to actually WANT to be mentioned in the blog.I suppose it's a female thing. Seeking attention. Wanting boosts to self-esteem that someone cares about you enough to mention you in something that they write.

On the topic of what people have said, or are saying, to me about this, it's been suggested that "I type too much", and that a new topic that I should talk about is me...

I've not actually mentioned much about myself yet. It's one of those security things that was hammered into me at a very young age and that I never reallly got over as I got older. I suppose, that really, if you're reading this, and that you care about reading this enough to actually follow it to this point, then you deserve to know a little about me.

I'm 14. Until September the 29th, from when I'll be 15. I thought it would be fairly obvious that I'm a teenager... but what with the rest of the world saying that I'm some random pervert or paedophile that really needs to get a life and some friends that aren't only virtual ones, I thought that I'd better mention it.

I'm also a geek. Not a nerd, or a boff - although I used to be a boff - but a geek. That means, for those that aren't educated in the virtual language, that I have a life, and a computer, and am fairly good at both. Life is just like a game, only I don't think you really get a second chance at surviving. Or a checkpoint you can reload from.

In terms of physical appearance, I'm not really anything special. I'm a little taller than average, and despite the BMI thingy saying I'm overweight, the doctors reassure me that I'm actually a skinny lad. I must be muscley. It's all the hard work I do as a gardener and organist. It must be.

On that sort of note, which is an inadvertent pun, I also play the church organ and piano. I'm not too bad at either, having spent 3 years playing the organ and 9 years (or thereabouts) playing the piano. I be the sort of person that schools get to play at concerts, rehearsals, performances and everything else. Apparently I make the school look good. I also do that in terms of results.

I be the sort of person that walks into a lesson and within 10 minutes is bored. It's mostly stuff I've done before and know. The exception is in ICT where I can get a quick 50 minute nap in the middle of a lesson. I mean.. I could probably go and find all the stuff I need to complete the entire course lying around on the web somewhere. Or do it on this laptop in about 10 seconds flat.

But I'm sure I've mentioned that before, and repeating myself tends to mean that I'm running out of things to say.

On a plus note, I just got Grace thanking me (over MSN) due to this blog. It be unusual. She be the sort of person that doesn't NEED to thank you. I'm not entirely sure why everyone does thank me.

More feedback includes Charlotte, who is blonde in nature, hair and spirit, who managed to read, and reread and reread te repeating bit yesterday. She couldn't find the secret message I didn't hide in there. Or did I? Mwhahahaha! Bet that you'll start wondering if there's a secret message hidden behind all of this now. I'll tell you a big secret: there isn't. Don't you feel special now?

Having just reread yesterday's blog, because I know that I didn't finish it - for which I blame Spore... again - I've discovered that I was talking about how little girls say in lots and lots of talking. I also discovered that I said that I do it as well. Does this mean that I am feminine?

I find it wierd. A girl can be masculine and be called a tomboy. A boy can't be feminine, or if he is, he's called gay, or girly, or various other pseudo-insults. That is, people that percieve homosexuals, or "girly" boys, as bad things. Which is, for some reason, much of the world.

I have a few homosexual friends, or gay friends, as many people would call them. They're not much different to everyone else, except that they don't go on about sex and other various related things all that much. Which is, in my book, certainly something useful. I mean.. once you've taken it so far and talked about it for so long it just gets crude, and as most teenagers break into peals of laughter at the slightest reference, it's mindbogglingly tedious.

I really don't get what is so funny aout sex.

It's something that the human race needs to do for survival, but beyond that I don't know. Maybe sex is something that should be seen as the ultimate truth. Anything that is pleasureful will bring great pain to you later on. Kids are apparently a drag, and sex is apparently the highlight of some people's life. I couldn't reliably comment though. I'm a little too young. And I'm not exactly willing to drag myself into legal trouble over a few moments of fun.

Not that I'm "frigid" (I believe is the expression) just that it's not worth it. No really. Honest! I know that some people are giving me strange looks at the moment.

On the subject of recreational procreation (which is a lovely way of describing it) I should probably mention that this laptop is on top of my lap. Apparently the radiation caused by things such as laptops, mobile phones, palmtops and many other electrical things is enough to render a man sterile should he sit them within such and such a distance of his.... equipment....

I think that it's something like direct contact would be required 24/7, but most people don't take the chance.

Makes me wonder actually.. how did they test this? Did they get a man to sit their stark naked for a year or two with varying amounts of exposure to laptops around the... equipment.. and then measure the effect on his fertility? Would be a little bit of a yucky way to experiment this. Unless they provided some nice entertainment for him. Or the cells next door to him were all the testings on females......

Saying that in the most innocent voice you can imagine naturally.

I suppose that, going back to my earlier point about feminine males, that it should also be mentioned what characteristics are and aren't allowed in males and females.

Empathy and Sympathy are signs of weakness in a man. They show that the men aren't actually apathetic about the world, and that in actuality the men are somewhat pathetic. I can't understand these two. Men aren't allowed to show these around men in case they're judged as being not man enough, but if they aren't shown around females then the men aren't a suitable target for anything. I mean.. it's a lose lose situation for males. Is unfair I suppose.

Now I just turned on this screen recorder thing that was given to me by a friend. I wanted to see whether or not it was any good for actualy taking Videos. So I'm letting it see me typing this in a fairly awful way of doing it. I mean.. I'm hitting a fair few wrong keys here and there. 90 seconds shold be long enough for e to see what's going on though, so y'know.. let's see what's the quality is like!!!

For quality, it's not too bad. I was expecting much much worse. I have a bad history of free programs. I downloaded a few games once... about 1-2GB worth of them. I thought that they'd keep me occupied for a bit, but in actuality they didn't. They were from my good friends at Spiderweb Software, or whatever it is that they're called, and the games were the complete Exile+Avernum Series.

Of the two series, Exile kept me occupied for the most time. For the most part, I found Avernum a little more tedious and overall less satisfying. I mean, Avernum is the modern remake of the game Exile, so most of the dialogs are the same, or similar, the quest lines are fairly obvious, but despite the graphics being 2.5D as opposed to 2D, they aren't as good.

Many people are of the opinion that if it's a higher level of Dimensions (so 2.5D or 3D as oppose to 2D or 1D - otherwise known as sidescroller) then it's better graphics. However, I'd rather have decent 2D or 1D graphics as oppose to fairly awful 2.5D graphics. No offence to the development team at Spiderweb Softworks or whatever it is that they're called, but until the game engine remake or A4 (Avernum 4) the engine just doesn't really cope all that well.

I think that many games could learn from what I just said... Mario isn't nearly as much fun in the later 2D and higher versions.. is like trying to play sonic where you can go forwards and backwards as well as side to side and up and down.... Athough, strictly speaking, sonic is actually 2D as you can jump, but I prefer to call it a sidescroller to avoid the confusion that happens much of the time.

I'd post screenshots to show the difference (as I have the original mario AND the early Sonic and some of the other nice old games) but I have the feeling that that might push my blogging into new grounds where I'm not quite willing to go yet... and I'm not sure how good the image hosting on blogspot is. Take it on my word that there is a very noticeable, and very large difference between them.

Forgetting about the virtual world for the moment, lets talk about a slightly better thing, such as the black hole creator thingy that's buried underneath Switzerland. It's called a Large Hadron Collidor, it's 22 miles long, is made up of lots and lots of magnets, all supercooled to a few degrees above absolute zero and all designed to smash together particles at immense speeds. It's a fairly good idea in theory.. it's just some of the little things that they need to sort out. Take, for example,one of their aims; which is - and this I quote- "To recreate the conditions immediately after the big bang on a smaller scale."

I covered this recently in Religous Studies at school. The conditions immediately prior to the big bang were in fact smaller than the amount of particles they're throwing around this tunnel. The universe was a compressed mass, many billions of time smaller than say.. the prick of a very thin needle. So insetad of creating it on a smaller scale, they are infact recreating it on a bigger scale. I think. I might be wrong, and have it back to front.

However, the slight problem of what happens when, for instance, they manage to accurately recreate the explosion. And the BOOM! New universe is there. I mean.. logically it must hae happened before.

According to scientists, the approximate age of the universe is 20 billion years. And the approxiate diameter of it is around 60 billion light years. If things were to extend at the speed of light - which is theoretically impossible - then you've got 40 billion years of additional stuff coming from somewhere. I theorise that those extra years are, in fact, the subject of experiements prior to that. Notice that I avoid explaining how the original universe was created, as that would give me a headache. So these swiss scientists are going to go along, create this shiny new explosion, blow up the planet and then we'll have another universe expanding at the speed of light, expanding the current universe in which we live also at that speed and also causing that universe to push out other ones.

My explanation makes sense. Sort of. It avoids going into details about black holes, wormholes, rips and fragmentation of time and space.

Which I'm going to avoid at 20 to 11 at night. I've just got to go and download something, and also do some otherstuff, so I'll leave the blog here.

For the moment.

Should be noted that this was posted on the actual day of writing. Is amazing! And a first, I think...

19th September

19th September

Well I just found my stupid thing for today. Apparently all it takes to get an advert or television series pulled off of TV are nine viewers to complain about it. Yes, that's nine. Single digit. All of them must complain... and then ASA (Adverts Standards Association) will consider it for being pulled.

To put this in context, let us consider just how many people have TVs in England. Let's say that the average family is 4 people (mum+dad+two kids.) As the population of England is around 60 million that's 15 million families. If 1/50 families have televisions that's 300,000 families with TVs. But I'm sure that there's more televisions than that. And besides, you're still going to get other size familes (I think the average number of children is 1.72 in the UK) which will have varying numbers of tvs.

Let's say that out of these 1.2 million viewers, one hundred thousand watch that particular advert. So it takes around 1/10000 of all people watching something to complain to get it removed off of the list of things that it is possible to watch. Sorry, it's closer to 1/11111 but that doesn't quite roll off of the tongue or fingers so easily for some reason. And all those ones make me wonder why I just typed in the numerical figures for one million, one hundred and eleven thousand and one hundred and eleven. That dash looks suspiciously like a one.

Stupid things aside, I suppose I'd better get on with the slightly more serious idea of writing something worthwhile and interesting.

As in, something that I haven't already covered in all my ramblings.

I mean, I've covered lots of things. In chronological order these are:

8th Sept
- The value of your life
- The value of life on earth
- Evil and more Evil
- Girl's favourite games
- Why girls are confusing
- What to avoid saying to boys
- The predictability of teenagers
- Confidentiality
- Belief
- How to fly
- Euthanasia

9th Sept
- Why I wrote this
- Gaming
- Games to buy
- Equality in Schools
- Ranking in Schools
- How to complain in school situations
- ICT GCSE
- Music

10th Sept
- Why I wrote this (in more detail)
- A few introductions
- Homework and it's role in society
- Spore
- The new political movement
- Probability
- Cryogenics
- Male and Female lust
- The effect of Sex Education on society
- Trust

11th Sept
- Hell and Heaven
- Pleasing women and men
- My own beliefs
- English Literature
- Why matchmaking fails with me
- How to hurt people emotionally
- Discrimination and why Equality doesn't work
- Do Placebo experiments prove anything?

13th Sept
- Gamer's Anonymous
- SECU-ROM
- Internet Usage
- Gamer's Union
- My sense of Humour
- Family and their worth
- Global Warming

14th Sept
- Working as a teenager
- Music at school
- Why not to be famous
- Designer Clothes
- How to waste money
- How to manipulate a crowd
- Some more introductions
- Atypicality
- Male lines of thought
- Why trying to hide things is pointless
- Why being polite is expected



And a few more besides on the days that I can't go and look at beacuse my memory stick isn't lying around inside to shove into my computer.

It's not that I don't have lots to say, it's just that if I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring
If I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring.
If I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring.
If I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring.
If I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring.
If I start repeating myself over and over it tends to get boring.

I'm willing to bet that most of you just didn't bother reading the last blolck of text but instead skipped it, missing out the carefully hidden message I put inside it.

And I bet you just went back and read it again didn't you?


Most people are shockingly predictable. They'll pretend that they don't bother and then, when they think you aren't watching, will immediately bother about it. Say that I say that they look awful. They'll pretend not to care, but as I walk off they'll ask the person next to them, "How do I look?"

It's a matter of confidence.

Unluckily for many people around me that actually try to irritate me, or bother me, or do anything else along those lines, it's not that I pretend not to care, it's that I just don't really care if they're trying to irritate me. It's a very good mindset to have.

I am repeatedly told, by varying people, that the best way to stop a bully is to ignore them. If they don't get a reaction then they don't continue. I would agree with this in most cases. Being on a school bus every day has opened up my eyes slightly. Someone was throwing stuff at me the other day. They couldn't throw and they missed. I just ignored the missile. Today, the same person threw something at someone else. That person who also got missed, threw it straight back, and having had a reaction the bully continued to do what they do worst. Or best. Depending on how good a thing bullying is.

Prehaps, however, a better example would be one where the ammunition isn't limited. Such as verbal wordplay.

I'm a geek. It's a compliment rather than an insult that many people percieve it to be. Mistakenly percieve it to be that is. You see, a geek is someone that is good at computers, who has friends, talks to them, generally has a life and more besides. The one that often gets confused with geek is the word "nerd" which is a fairly awful insult. It's pretty much a deadend role. You can't escape it, you can't really get a life and you only pretend to know stuff about computers.

I know a few nerds. And they are offended by the suggestion that they are a geek or a nerd. Which goes to show just how little they actually know.

Upon learning that I considered nerd to be an insult, these random girls (although they bring disgrace to the word girl, and new levels to which those things can stoop to) decided to try and get me angry, or irritated, or get a response out of me. They initially succeeded, till I got bored of wiping the floor with them verbally, and just ignored them.

However, they had had their reaction and continued. Now, where I most often do not react, they tend to find something better to do with their time. Like sit there looking bored. It's fairly amusing actually, but I don't laugh at them too much. They might decide that I am worthy of a new name or something. And I have enough of them already thank you.

Which leads me rather nicely onto nicknames.

I don't know who invented them, but it's really annoying. I mean, if 5 girls named Sue, Ellen, Jane, Andrianna and Amy went for a meal somewhere (those names are totally random, and picked up out of my brain at random) they'd call each other Sue, Ellen, Jane, Andrianna and Amy. Obviously only one of those though. They wouldn't turn round to the person next to them and say "Hello Sue, Ellen, Jane, Andrianna and Amy! How are you today? Do you think Sue, Ellen, Jan, Andrianna and Amy across the table is going to agree to pay for the meal today?"

If 5 boys went out for a meal, whatever they were called properly, they'd all have nicknames and they'd all use them. And make up new ones for each other every ten minutes.
As a teenage male boy, although I'm considering changing the boy bit to something a little better, as most boys of my age are total retards or worse (some of them are actually vaguely intelligent!), I'm fully aware of nicknames. I'm currently everything from Camelot to Nerd to Geek to a few other names that I won't put because they actually have a reference to my proper name.

It's ridiculously stupid! I mean.. where did "Camelot" come from? Or do I just not want to know?

There's an awful lot of things that I say that about.

Having joined in many conversations over my pitiful years of existence and what we percieve to be life, I'm fullly aware that some conversations shouldn't be started, joined in or even take place. I'm not going to put an example, as it'd only embarress the people in question should they ever find out. Needless to say, it was amazingly revealing as to the levels of innocence amongst the "virigins" at my new school.

I think that's enough said, for if I say any more I'll have to provide proof and that's something that's a little hard to do. not like I record it all.

Also, it never fails to surprise me how little girls can actually say to each other. Boys can have a phone conversation in 30 seconds flat, in which they manage to organise to go to the cinema with their relative girlfriends, where they're meeting up, what time, where they're going for a meal afterwards, who else is coming and everything else.

Girls need about 3 hours to get round to the first bulletpoint and another 20 minutes for every bulletpoint after that.

I mean, girls sit there talking and talking and talking and never really stopping. And yet they say lots of not very much. Given a choice between saying lots of not very much and not very much of lots, I would have to admit that I'd prefer the latter but actually exist with the former. This very blog proves that point fairly nicely.

And I seem to have run out of time for today. Meh... I'll finish this line of thought tommorow.

18th September: Getting up to date

18th Sept.

I was thinking today. Unusually enough. And I began to think about famous lines or words from people. Not the sort of famous last words like, "I bet I can jump further off of this cliff than you!" or "You can shoot bullets at this jacket all you want, it's bulletproof!" but rather the words of various poets or authors.

For example, William Shakespeares line "A Rose by any other name is still a Rose." where Romeno is talking to Juliet in (guess what...) Romeo and Juliet. As far as I can remember, there's these two families that hate each other, Romeo and Juliet are the kids of the leaders of each of these families and they fall madly in love with each other, and then everyone dies in various ways throughout the play, meaning that the modern version I watched a long long time ago was mainly blood and more blood.

Now, as far as most people are concerned, that line is a beautiful compliment, not only comparing Juliet to a rose, but also that Romeo is saying that it doesn't matter what her name is, she's still his Juliet. Yeah.. that's all romantic. However, as we learn in maths, the inverse is also true. So if a rose by any other name is still a rose, so is a dungheap.

I'm not exactly some great jouster in the fields of love, but I'm sure that if Romeo had said my version of that line, Juliet would have shot him herself instead of waiting for him to get round to it somewhere in the last act. The point blank, in your face, reaction to that sort of comment would be to presume that you are talking about the person in front of you.

I, however, could see that as being a great compliment! A dungheap is very useful. It provides manure, a way to keep the neighbours out of their gardens due to the smell, and someone to throw all the kitchen waste and other stuff that you don't particular want or need. Little sisters spring to mind, but I've not found any worms willing to eat live flesh yet. I'll tell you if I ever do.

However, a rose... what use is a rose? I mean.. sure they're pretty to look at and all that, but if something exists to look pretty then I think it's pretty much useless. Which is probably why most girls that attempt to grab every boy they can see just don't interest me. I mean, once you get bored of pretty then you start to realise stuff. Going back to roses for the moment - as talking about girls always gives me a headache as I have to moderate my thoughts and not say anything too suicidal - roses have thorns. And those thorns ALWAYS stick into my fingers.

So going back to the Romeo and Juliet line, couldn't this be Romeo dropping a subtle hint to Juliet to stop trying to make the relationship work, as it were, and just run off and find someone slightly more suitable who the family approve of? I will admit that this doesn't fit in with the rest of the play, as far as I know, but I'm also going to point out that with enough cynicism and convulted logical arguments I could probably turn most of the play into Romeo desperately trying to escape from this girl that's hanging around him making him look seriously uncool. Uncool to the point that most of his friends want him dead.

Which is seriously uncool if you didn't realise that.


Another line that always irritates me from Shakespeare is the all time famous one, "To be or not to be, that is the question." Or whatever the actual question is. I normally get it all wrong and someone always corrects me. Doesn't mean I remember it though.

Now, I think at this point Will is trying to philosophise a little. Unlike the rest of the play which is generally tragic (I think) here he is trying to have a serious moment. And as far as I can remember, someone interrupts him.

Is Shakespeare trying to make a point here? The moment you start trying to take something alot more seriously than before everyone still interrupts you so it doesn't really matter what you say. So I could say whatever I wanted and no one would take any notice.

If only.

I can say whatever I want on the following conditions:

No one truly understands what I just said
No one feels insulted
No one feels complimented
No one feels like I'm complimenting someone else
No one is drawing lovehearts between me and other people on a piece of paper
And possibly a few more... you know what it's like.


The problem I have with this is that it's totally impossible to say anything without, in some way or some interpretation, insulting someone or complimenting someone or in fact, any of the above.

Luckily, most people just ignore the subtler signals that everyone gives out (along with the pheremones) and therefore to give a hint you actually have to be quite crude and forthright. Or at least, relatively crude and forthright. But not too crude. Because the cruder you get the more that people start to feel that you are trying to say that they're stupid and therefore are insulted.

Unless you are TRYING to insult them, in which case you're not a very nice person and you should join the club of the "totally unable to have a conversation without insulting at least one person in it" people that I run. I also started it about 3 seconds ago, and the forum will be created once I get round to it.

Ask me in a few years and I might have got round to setting up an e-mail address for it. Possibly. It depends how busy I am and when I next have 25 hours spare in one day for me to set it all up.

If I were, for instance, to tease someone it could be read in various different ways.

It could be read at face value and be seen as an insult.
It could be read as sarcasm and seen as a compliment.
It could be read as sarcasm and be seen as complimenting someone else
It could be read at face value and be seen as complimenting someone else
It could be seen as a form of flirting
It could be totally misunderstood, as in the case directly above this one in most cases.

So that imediately means that however they interpret it they are immediately meaning that I can't say whatever I want. It's a definite chance of losing with an exactly one in one million chance of not managing to totally lose and salvage something out of it that means it's read in whatever way I feel like it should be read at that particular moment in time.

For those that couldn't follow that line of thought, like me, that means that I can occasionally salvage something (as everyone knows that something that has an exact one in one million chance of happening will happen nine out of ten times) out of the situation so that I don't end up with the world hating me totally.

They just mostly hate me. It's a big difference. Relatively. In actuality it's probably not THAT big... but y'know.

So this means, that with this totaly ambiguity of meanings to just about everything I say, I can normally control - to some extent - what people think I'm going on about. It's much much harder online as I can't do body language or gesture or the other small things (occasionally bigger than small though) that make a simple compliment into much more, or turn what could be percieved as a compliment into a massive insult.

If I, for instance, were to lean towards someone slightly - which many people do subconsciously - it gives an entirely different impression to leaning slightly away. The difference being that leaning towards someone means that they feel as if you're listening and that you are genuinely interested in what they're saying and that you're interested in them. Leaning away generally gives the impression that you don't want to be speaking to them, or you are nervous. Or both. Maybe even cause and effect!

If I were to gesture towards someone whilst saying a perceieved insult then it's generally, but not always, taken that what I'm saying is about that person. Nearly always.

Online, as I said before, is a lot harder as you actually have to say what you're going on about and not confuse everyone totally.


I'm just confusing myself now, so let's change ideas.

I was reading something recently about Space Jumping. You get a parachute, you get a space shuttle and a launch pad. You take off, go into a nice orbit at about 10000 miles up, jump off and spend the next few hours shooting back down onto the earth at a speed of around 2500mph until you hit the parachute.

On the surface it seems like a good idea.. A little extreme, but good nonetheless.

Then you start looking at the science of it. Entering the earth at 2500mph causes a vast amount of heat to be formed due to friction to the air particles around you. Enough heat, in fact, to melt the average spaceship significantly. So you, with this 2" thick spacesuit will last about 10 seconds. And then you'll be toast.

Well.. ashes, as toast is only mildly burnt and you'll just be reduced to practically nothing and float around dead. In millions and millions of pieces.

So let's say they get the temperature problem sorted out, now lets think about parachuting.

You're going at a tremendous speed of around 2000 miles per hour. You pull the parachute and the stress of going that fast is thrown onto a piece of fabric. You sort of get this image of it just failing totally. It ripping due to the stresses that you just put on it all at once.

But let's say that it doesn't rip... and those 2000 miles per hour are all thrown upwards simultaneously (remembering 2000mph is an approximate figure.) You go shooting back up for a few seconds, which is probably enough to place you about 300 miles aboce where you were. Not a problem. Apart from the fact that your legs couldn't keep up and that your life blood is sort of pouring out into your space suit.

I presume that that is what would happen. I don't know. I'm not a physicist.

Or even if your legs didn't fall off that sort of stress being placed on your body would probably pull a few bones here and there.

And then you land, hours later, in great pain, with bruises all over you and needing desperate attention.

The other problem, now you've landed, is that you're still cooking at around 1000 degrees celsius. That's enough to mean that most people won't come within about 20 metres of you until you've cooled down significantly. They could hose you down, but as most people don't want to spend the last few seconds of their life realising that hosing down superheated metal means it all contracts exceedingly fast, it won't work. Or... the water will just evaporate before it gets to you and you'll get steam rising off of you all the time.

I'm guessing that you'll have to stand around for an hour or two not really doing anything but waiting for yourself to cool down.

If you can.

If you fall into the sea, what then? You can't evaporate however many tonnes of water there are across the ocean. In fact, I have this sneaking suspicion that a sea landing will just bounce you around like a skimming stone, and the impact of it will snap most of your bones and kill you. Like hitting a concrete floor only harder. When you jump off of a building you aren't going that fast, maybe 30 miles per hour tops. When you jump with a parachute you reach anywhere up to 60, but 30-40 is more realistic.

Even that slowly it'll still hurt like heaven. Or hell if you haven't read all of this blog.

Saying that however, raises the question of what happens if you don't die. All that water cools you at a tremendous rate.. shrinkwrapping you. Killing you.

It's a die die situation, what do you want to do?

So all in all, I think I'll be passing on this new fad. The idea of having a 100% death rate, and/or having to sit around for 4 hours in the air and about the same on the ground waiting to cool off doesn't appeal to me.

Unless you get insuit computers with internet access. I'm sure I could find something to do on the internet.

Having just read over all of this I realise I made a slight mistake.... I put spacesuits down as being made of metal.

It's a bit of a stupid mistake really. I mean.. no one wants to be surrounded by metal at superhigh temperatures. They make them out of ceramics. A pottery suit! I knew there was a use behind ceramics somewhere. However, the problems remain the same, excepting the supercooling and shrinking bit. You'd just sort of sink into the water with an almighty splash without bouncing around.

Bouncing around seems like fun though. Painful, but still fun. Until you die. At which point you can tell me whether or not hell is interesting.


The other strange thought I had the other day was about those men who used to run around in front of cars to warn pedestrians to get out of the way. Imagine if that law was never rescinded.. you'd have to hire a man (or woman, now we have "equal" rights) to hang on the front of your car with a red flag, wearing a red suit and painted red all over to warn pedestrians that the red blur that just passed by was a dangerous veihcle and that getting in the way of it wasn't a good idea.

And would the law apply to other modern vehicles? A little man on the front of aeroplanes in a plantpot with a helmet and a supply of oxygen and a little red flag to wave at all the clouds. It'd be a ridiculously stupid law, but what with the english being english, I could see that it could have happened. Possibly.

Career progression would be practically non-existant for these people.. but a strike? No transport at all (apart from trains and trams, which didn't have men running around dressed in a suit and waving a red flag in front of them) and so the strike would have to be organised for after they'd all got to wherever they were demonstrating, as otherwise they wouldn't be able to get there quickly.

It's a remarkably stupid idea. Maybe I should stop there before I go into too much detail about the painting. I'm sure that anyone applying for the job would immediately be given a rating out of 10 for physical appearance by anyone of the opposite sex to ensure that this proceedure was..... pleasureful.

That could be taken in the wrong way couldn't it? Only this time it's on purpose, so if you didn't take that last bit the wrong way realise that you just did and then go and take it the right way, which most people presumed would be the wrong way.

Don't you just love the english language? You can confuse so many people by using exactly correct grammar and spelling and making use of techniques like double negatives, complex sentences, compound sentences and those fiddly little things called full stops. I can never seem to not use a full stop or a capital letter in a piece of work no matter how much I try. Maybe I'll lose marks for having simple punctuation!

The other thing about the english language is that it isn't really english.

It's a mixup of german, norweigan, french, latin, italian, german, irish, celtic, scottish, picti, spanish, american and every other stupid person that has invaded us in one way or another. Excepting the Chinese and the Polish. They've not been here long enough yet. Give them a few years and then I'll have to relearn the English Language. Or at least, learn it properly as opposed to the version of it I speak.

You are prehaps wondering why all those languages are thrown in there.

The answer is quite simple. One way or another, most of those countries invaded us. I could probably include Urdu as well, but that'd just confuse people and then I'd have to start going into intimate detail and the history of europe. The examples above are quite complicated enough thank you.

It all started around 900BC. The Roman Empire started on the banks of the River Neman (I think) and started growing rapidly. They quickly assimilated most of modern day Italy over the next few hundred years, eventually moving up to the alps in the north and establishing a sea frontier on all of that piece of peninsula. They conquered parts of Persia, Greece and the other one who I always forget. Phoenencia prehaps?

By around 300BC they'd got round to training up vast armies and had learnt how to build straight rounds. No corner shops in those times... The romans cleverly prevented a sneak invasion by using this technique. Clever them. Over the next 350 years they conquered most of the known world, including the rest of Persia, Egypt, Greece, modern day France and Spain, parts of northern africa and more besides, but didn't extend that far east due to the fact that the Byzantinian Empire was sitting in their path (or at least, the forerunners of) and that the larger armies and continents of Persia - or rather, what had once been Persia before the Chinese decided to take over it in the early parts of 100-1BC.

With this vast territory in mind they had managed to develop boats. I think they initially stole the ideas off of the Pheonencians, who by this point were basically traders under Roman control as all their lands were dead, along with their language and culture. They'd taken over the isles in the straits of modern day Turkey, most of the countries bordering on the mediterrean and had begun to look north.

In 59AD the romans ventured across briefly into England, took one look at the weather and went off to do something vaguely more interesting. Kill the Germanians I think. They came back around 20-30 years later and decided to stay, imposing their religion, law and culture on the locals. Who were a mixup of Picts and Celts and the original Welsh as they were all busy trying to argue amongst each other about who should rule which part of the relatively small country.

This didn't go down too well with the druids, leading to the uprising of Boudicca, the thrashing of the romans followed shortly by the massacre of all of her army and the following domination of most of modern day England, pushing the Celts north and the Picts and the original welsh into modern day Wales, leaving behind those that wouldn't or couldn't move away and a few roman soldiers who fell madly in love with the wonderful rainy seasons that we have here. All 4 of them.

They managed to hang around for a few years, with the romans in Britain managing to last until after the fall of the Western Empire in the mid 4th or 5th century, and the rise of the Eastern Roman Empire shortly after (the romans having captured Constantinople and shifted their entire base of operations east, leading to a latin dialect in some parts of modern day Asia, although for the most part this has now died out apart from in some areas.) Then the Germanians, or the goths as they were now, decided that they would invade. Angles from Germany, and Saxons from France nipped over for a brief visit that lasted all of 20 years until the first vikings decided to invade from Norway.

A little more general history would be useful at this point.

The Vikings - or the danes - were from the bits in the northeast of Europe, such as Norway, Sweeden and Finland (modern day countries) which was, at the time, referred to as the Daneland. They had invaded parts of modern day asia to the east, as they liked Russia, and had also started to venture south. However, they still preferred hanging around where the temperature didn't go much above freezing on the warmest of days. If they were lucky.

Back on topic

With the Norweigans pushing at them from the east and a Pict uprising in the west, the Anglo-Saxons - who by this point had joined together and had a joint rulership - they decided to retreat into Wales, defeating the Picts and pushing the aforementioned original welsh people into the far west of Wales and over the sea into Ireland, joining some of the wars that were being constantly fought there.

The Vikings had free reign over this nice new land they'd just aquired. So they sat around deciding to establish a Danelaw and start their own thing up again. It lasted until the Vikings from the Daneland decided that this might be the opportune time to invade Europe.

It should probably be noted by the aspiring scholar that the vikings were never actually together as a group, but rather pillaged and plundered mostly in their own little villages or towns, meaning that despite the Viking's brutal efficiency, Europe never saw their true strength, sparing us the total destruction that seeing their true strength would have brought about.

They ran south and west, running through the last remnants of the Goths, who were by this point sorely regretting their choice of settlements, as the Dauphin of France had decided that it might be a nice time to extend the french borders, and the Italians had started to wonder what was behind the big wall of mountains, the remnants of the Romans from the east were being pushed out by uprisings there and the original Germans thought that all this chaos might be fun to exploit and were trying to re-establish their own country in the middle of it all.

The Vikings put a bloody end to it all, with them killing everyone they met until they only met more vikings and decided that they'd start their own country and adopted some of the various cultural features that established that period of German nationality.

Other Vikings, however, headed further west, running into the Dauphin of France who'd just had sizeable portions of his army decimated by one lot of Vikings. The dauphin (or king), unaware the the vikings mostly hated each other and wouldn't gang up on him, worried that they might coincide and struck a deal with these vikings that they wouldn't go beyond the borders of Normandy and that they could have them.

More Vikings took this deal than not, simply because going further west they would have met the current Spanish king who had also decided that this might be a fun time to invade, and took over much of Western Europe, pushing the Italins back inside the alps and also establishing a nice place on the sea next to Normandy.

This all happened over a period of about 600 or 700 years, meaning that the date at this point is about 1030.

Our good friend WIlliam was born in England - under the Anglo-Saxons, who had decided that they would kick out the Vikings and restablish their law, mostly succeeding as the Danelaw around London failed in the late 10th century - along with his brother Harold, who decided that the crown would be better on his head than Williams and so kicked out his brother. Isn't that nice and friendly?

William came to Normandy fairly early on in his life, fleeing for his life from the traitorous people of Angland who basically turned on him for the hell of it and because the men in the shiny suits of armour with the big swords told them that if they didn't they'd die in various horrible ways. It worked amazingly well.

William, however, felt cheated out of his crown in england and managed to establish a place amongst the Norman Vikings, who by this point had pretty much assimilated themselves into French culture, although many Viking traditions were still being upheld.

Should probably be noted that the french were pretty much dead by this point, as a different group of vikings had invaded from Germania - or Germany as we call it - and ignored any peace treaties due to religous obligations to kill anything that moved. They'd sacked Paris, and France was pretty much under the control of whoever had the most military - at this point the Normans.

The spanish normans and the french normans (remembering that the spanish had conquered parts of Normandy a little earlier on during their brief expansion phase) joined up, and had become the Normans, and between them (with convincing from William) decided to invade Britain.

They called on their good friends the Danes, who agreed that they would help in return for loot, and got round to the serious buisness of getting Will back his crown.

The moment this military force left Normandy, the currnet Dauphin of France - seeing an opportunity - resurfaced and conquered much of the land which had been taken off of him by the various countries that had been picking on him for the last 2000 years or so. But it's off of the point.

The danes got killed at one battle, Will won the battle on the beach and became king of england in 1066. Which was all very fine until about 1100 when the Danes forgot that they'd agreed not to attack and went around sacking the Christian monestaries that had sprung up with William - who was Christian - had supported the building of more churches in his style - as the Anglo-Saxons had also been christians and had built churches themselves.

Mid 1100s the Danes invaded, but never managed the levels of domination that had before been reached due to the sheer number of ethnic diversities each fighting amongst themselves. It's called the dark ages this period. People forgot how to write so there's not much information about it.

However, you get my point.

The Romans brought in Latin, which is related to Italian.
The Germans brought in German and Anglo-Saxony
The Picts were already there with Picti
The Welsh helped a little
As did the Celts - or the Scots
The Spanish and the French had their turn with the Normans
The Danes brought in Norweigan
And there's probably a few other languages that get mixed up in all of this.


The English have this slight problem with being English. So many people have invaded it, in one way or another, over the last 3000 years that England doesn't really exist. You have parts were danish names are all the thing, such as Barkby, Frisby, Oadby, Saxby and so on. You have parts were the names aren't danish and something else, such as Birmingham, Oakham, Leicester. And you have parts which are so damn confusing that I don't know what they are.

Like Coventry.

I THINK it's a roman name. I'm not entirely sure though. Don't quote me on that.


So am I english or not?

The answer is most probably yes, at least superficially, but if you go back far enough, scientists have managed to trace the origins of the human race into Africa. One women and about 7 men. Maybe more men, but it's enough for a fairly good gene pool nonetheless.

So we're all african! Feel special, and then realise that we all have bleached skin once you hit anywhere beyond about the mediterrean, and that despite the vast majority of the world being non-African, we are all genetically from there.

Although at the time it wouldn't have been Africa. It would have been that fancy name which means all the lands joined together. I've got a book on it.


In case you're wondering how I knew all of the above history, it's a mixup of what I've picked up, made up or learnt at school. The last two are often lumped together, as some teachers don't know what they're going on about and improvise on the spot.

You can know it, or you can teach it. Is that how the expression goes?


Getting onto a different topic, as all that just gave me a headache, have you ever wondered why we have the phrase "washing up"?

Surely we're not actually washing up. As far as I know, originally washing meant going down to the nearest stream, taking off your various animal skins, leaving them on the side and jumping in and skinny dipping.

I've never actually been skinny dipping. It's one of these things that sounds like fun, and then you think about it and realise just how hard it would actually be to do it legally.

Washing up, however, means washing the dishes. So why do we wash dishes upwards? Is it because we think that they can float? Or for some other ulterior motive which I haven't yet realised, but that I'm sure will come to me if I think about it.


Forget about it, and think instead of the phrase "Don't worry."

It's generally said in some sort of cheery voice, with a smile and the occasionally glance at whatever it was that they were talking about. It also happens to be the most worrying thing that anyone can say to me.

The suggestion that I shouldn't worry immediately makes me think that there is something to be worried ABOUT, and therefore I should be worried instead of not worrying at all. It makes perfect logical sense, so it probably doesn't apply to real life at all.

Given the possible exception of "Oi! You in the corner!" (or other things on that line) it's also one of the things that is said to me fairly often. Which is probably even more worrying than the original phrase. It implies that I go through life failing to see lots of things which I should be worried about. Which means that I don't have any sense of danger and when things are bad for me.

That's not a good thing to not have. Or rather, it's a good thing to have it, and if you don't have it your screwed. Generally terminally, as our instinct for danger is for a very good reason indeed. It means that when the dog rips off our leg we can realise that our instincts were indeed right and the owner's comment of, "ooh.. it wouldn't hurt a flea" are blatantly untrue and should be something that we won't ever pay attention to.

If you manage to survive the trauma and stress of having your leg ripped off by a dog that is.

I suppose it's marginally better than being eaten alive by rats. That'd just be disguisting. You'd get woken up by pain and then that'd be it. Goodbye vital organs, goodbye family. I might see you again sometime soon on judgement day unless you all get into heaven and to be ever-after bored.

The other phrase that worries me a lot is "Do you know me?" as it immediately suggests to me that I should know the person in front of me, and by not knowing them will cause them huge offence and they just won't speak to me afterwards. Which in some cases is a great pity and in others just doesn't matter all that much.

If someone walks up to me and the first line is "Do you know me?" the answer is generally no. And then I'll come out with something along the lines of "Should I remember you?" It's amazing how many people can remember you on the spot, having not seen you once in the last 8 years since you moved away from the particular school that they remember you from. It's even more amazing that they expect me to remember them.

I'm not a photographic memory person (or whatever the proper name is.) I have problems remembering how to do simple things like spell words and use the correct punctuation. And write simple sentences - according to my english teacher, who told me that now I've shown that I can use complex and compound sentences I should be making them simpler. Um.. yeah. I see. Were those two and this one simple enough?

Oh damn. That was two clauses wasn't it? Meh - it doesn't matter all that much I don't think.

Other phrases that make me worry are:

"So how are you getting home?" from someone that should be giving me a lift back, or the alltime favourite "What are you doing here?"

Although generally those two are the other way round and the second one, or first one that they ask, is shouted as loud as possible in my left ear from behind so that I am partially deafened for weeks afterward.

A matter in case was when the drummer from a pantomine I play for saw me at school a few weeks back, walked up to me and screamed - in my face, admittedly. Not quite in my ears - "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE!" With it not even being a question.

Well I presume not. It was fairly obvious that I was at the school because it's the school that I had decided to go to for year 10. She's not THAT stupid. I think. Anything is posisble with players of rock music. I've seen them trash guitars worth hundreds of pounds just to sell them onto other rock players for hundreds of thousands. I've seen them try to dance or sing and fail.

If you can call what they're trying to sing singing that is.

It's not so bad with the female singers. The professional ones. They've realised that all you need to do to make yourself heard is to turn down everyone but the singer and then you're sorted. Problem over and solved.

The male singers are still trying to work out which way up the mike goes and where they should hold it for the best effect. The ultimate question being: "Should I hold it practically in my mouth so that all my mates can maje jokes out of it? Or should I simply just hold it so far away that it doesn't actually amplify me at all?"

Personally, I feel that mikes are something that should be offered, not given.

I recently played in a competition at my local theatre. Onstage everyone was nicely professional, performed relatively well, excepting a few who just crashed and burnt on stage, but backstage was an entirely different story.

The Jazz players hated the Classical players, the singers hated the jazz players, the dancers all hated each other, the girls hated the boys, the boys admired the view of lots of various low cut dresses on girls who at least had something to display in a low cut dress, unlike some girls who just fail majorly when they try to do that.

It got to the point where we basically had zones. Stage left were the musicians, who were professional enough offstafe to keep the murdering of each other relatively quiet, and stage right was everyone else, who had about 4 or 5 permament peacekeepers situated nearby to shush anyone that got too loud.

I'm getting off the point however. I was talking about singers.

One of the singers, a male one of about 17, who smoked and so on (which is awful for a singing voice if you didn't already know that), was complaining that they forced a mike onto him so that they could turn up the backing track all they wanted. He preferred to sing without the aforesaid mike, but was given no choice but to sing with it.

I could understand why.

Mikes are terribly restricting. They are all phased through a sound desk which edits out things like emotion, volume and anything else that makes for interesting music. They also tend to add new depths to the voice, meaning that boys end up squeaking like little girls or little boys, depending on how little the boys are, and that girls end up sounding like they're on steroids and secretly drinking whiskey offstage to get that voice down below a middle C (which is a fairly high note for many male singers.)

Personally, if I was going to sing, I would refuse to have the mike, and tell the techie people that they aren't allowed to turn up the soundtrack so loud and that if they do I'll blame them for me not winning the £1000 prize. Which this singer didn't anyway, but he did net a nice £100 prize for being the best singer.

Not that that was too hard I suppose.

I'm sure it's really unprofessional of me to say this, but any girl over about 15 was using things other than her voice and singing talents to try to grab the judge's attention and any girl under 15 couldn't sing all that well. The dancer's weren't much better. The ones that could dance managed to muck up and the ones that couldn't (ie. all of them) just looked silly or plain stupid.

Isn't the world of music a wonderful thing?

I found an example of what an orchestra was REALLY made up of the other day. I'll see if I can't dig it out at some point. It made me laugh for once, which is generally quite unusual.


Yesterday, I had pantomine rehearsals. I'm sure I mentioned it somewhere before, maybe on the short thing which I wrote at around 11 yesterday.

I play the piano for them. Rehearsals and performances. This year will be my third year, because it's really addictive this, and by this point I'm getting to know most of the cast.

One of the really wonderful things about doing the pantomine is the fact that as young boys just don't want to be seen doing acting (as it's a "girly" thing to be doing) most of the casts, if not all of the cast this year, that are my age are female (there's a few older male people, but we can forget about them.)

Naturally, it's not just the idea of girls jumping and prancing around on stage that amuses me and drags me back year after year, but instead the bits inbetween the acting on stage that amuse me.

Whenever I'm not playing the piano - which is most of the time, unless the new Music Director volunteer person thingy changes it - I'm sitting backstage listening to the girls witter on. It's amazing what they do witter on about. Not so much yesterday, as the vast majority of them don't turn up till first week in October, as it's just getting to know what the hell this pantomine is about at the moment, but certinaly as of October I'll be hearing more about some things than I could really do with knowing.

It is one of the highlights of my rather packed week. Although I'm sure this is really wierd, listening to girls go on and on and on and on and on and on and so on about everything from some random boy they met at school to just exactly what was going on between one of the members of the cast and a different boy to the aforesaid one is hillarious.

They'll ask me for opinions on everything from how well they can act/sing/dance to how they look (although that is mostly only on performance or dress rehearsals.) I don't dare answer many of the questions, simply because whatever I say will be taken the wrong way by at least one person who will, from then on, hate me. I sort of make little noises, which they then spend 10 minutes arguing about what they meant. It's wonderful!

Not actually having to take part in a conversation apart from the occasional grunt sounds really boring to most people, but being able to sit there and be amused means that I can let lose most of the inhibitions I normally place on my humour. Of course, the fact that none of them understand most of the jokes I make only serves to cheer me up even more. My humour is sadly underrated and unappreciated.

Such a pity. I'll just keep on having private jokes I think.

Joking aside, when I actually do get to participate in a conversation, it's generally about me and my feelings, or about someone else and their feelings for me (See the alltime favourite game "She fancies you" for more deatils) which is always amusing. The fact that they get it so totally wrong most of the time, and even when they do get it vaguely right I can't stop laughing means that it's automatically assumed that they are wrong.

Meaning that most of the time I can laugh and laugh even harder at how ridiculous they are. I'm sure it's driven some of them up the walls inside of their brain, trying to work out just what goes on inside of my brain.

Looking outside of pantomine, at the world in general, I'm sure that some people that actually know me could look back on times when they've played the game "I think you fancy.." and see just how I reacted to certain names and suggestions. It's really revealing just how much I give away by not giving anything away.

In fact, you can be sure that if I'm not giving anything away, I'm actually giving something away by not giving it away. Well, not totally sure, just occasionally sure, leading to total confusion amongst those that try to play this all time favourite game with me.

I don't know if other boys can do it so well though. It's not like people often matchmake that many other people, or if they do they do it succesfully. I think that many people just expect me to take whoever offers, or is offered, because they think that I think I need a girlfriend or whatnot. It's saddening. It's like saying that I'm the lowest of low things it's possible to sink to.

It may be true, but that's not the point. It's still not exactly the nicest way of putting it, especially in my own words. I'm so critical of myself it's quite nasty actually. Can I go to a teacher about me bullying myself or not? They're suppose to be preventing bullying at all these schools. They'd probably refer me to a counciller or something.

General insanity, schizophrenia, paranoia, histronical behaviour, narcissticicism symptoms and more besides. I've apparently got a high chance of all of these. The wonders of online tests! You have to love them.

I found a fairly interesting one the other day. It was called "find out what your true love should be called!"

Now I'm not exactly amazing at this sort of thing, but I'm sure that whatever it says cannot be proved wrong. Who says what true love is? Is it you? Is it the world? Is it the other person? The other thing that immediately comes to mind is that it says "SHOULD be called!" Now the implications of that are huge. It's not saying that they're going to be called that, only that they should. I mean... it can't be the tests fault if their parents decided to call them something else can it?

Apart from all of this comes one final thing, naturally. If you did one of these tests and then you met someone with that name tommorrow would you immediately presume that they were your true love? I know I wouldn't, I'd just be amused. I'm not going to trust an online thing any more than I trust myself. Which is to say, not at all.

I'll leave it up to you to decide for today, and whilst you think about this I guess that I could go and do something useful! That's it for today folks... enjoy. If possible. And if it isn't total rubbish.

Which is probably mutually exclusive. Me and non-total rubbish.

17th September: Just a little one.

17th Sept.

Sooo tired. Just got in from a 2 hour pantomine rehearsal (followed by an hour or so of trying to find something on google for homework tommorrow) and I had a hectic day yesterday.

It's probably bad of me to be writing this at 11pm, so I think I'll probably just leave it till tommorrow. The Little Red Men, just what women think about, the subconscious actions that everyone does and that can be interpreted in whatever ways you wish and more besides.

Sometimes I hate myself when I think ahead....

More Notes

No entry for the 16th. 17th should be up today or tommorrow morning.

15th September

It's now a week since I started writing this. And so far I've written approximately 100000 characters (inc spaces), 21000 words and 35 pages. According to microsoft word. Not too bad considering this is just something I'm doing in my spare time when I get bored and decide that I need to write something or just orate to the world.

Today I've had to tidy my bedroom. My computer has been shifted off of my desk and onto the floor, my monitor has been moved to one side of my desk to allow room for all my CDs and DVDs to go on the other side and I'm left with about the same amount of mess, just organised slightly better.

I never understand it. I can find things just as easily, with just as much effort, in the "tidy" room as in the "messy" room that I had before it all got tidied. Maybe it's so that I don't get mould accumulating underneath the many piles I have everywhere. Small mushroom colonies are supposed to grow outside not inside afterall. Even if they do make good pets because they require no sunlight, only water and no gardening skills whatsoever.

Also amongst the things that I don't understand today are the reasons why I tidied my room. Fair enough, my mum had told me to, and had started it, but I fail to see the reasons why she got stressed when I didn't do it for about 3 months. Maybe it's a control thing.

I get told to do something, I show my subserviance by doing it. That is a line of thought which would require next to no thought to elaborate, so I'll leave it to all 2 of my readers to reason it out.

Well, I presume it's two. For all I know this has been massively publicised somewhere and I'm now famous - or rather, this web identity is famous. I'll walk into whatever next game I want to walk into and then it'll be like "Hello! Are you that blog writer person?"

It wouldn't be the first time when I've walked into a game and had someone ask me if I did such and such a thing. At one point I was running at the top of a game named 1000AD, under the name of mediaboy. It just so happens that one or two of the people that brought me down from that high exalted spot in about 10 minutes flat (from me reaching the spot to me losing it was less than 2 hours. It took over 90 minutes of that for them to log on) also played some other games.

Those people used the same name, recognised my name, introduced themselves on those games and we started doing things as a group, or clan to give it it's proper name. For a year or two we ran rampage on the web, killing people, generally starting a new game of something every other month when we'd beaten everyone we possibly could on a previous game or made a name for ourselves or anything along those lines.

Then the original members (me and the other two... by this point we had a healthy community of players running around) started disappearing off of the games. We had too much on our hands... I'd just gotten distracted by a few things such as food and homework and the other two significantly older people (I was about 11, they were 14 and 16... according to them) had both met girls.

Girls always seem to play a very influential role in the online world without realising it. Entire alliances and clans have been known to fall apart due to them.

They waltz into our lives and demand all our time and more besides all our time until we can't do anything but pay attention to them and do everything they say and want. I think that girls got the better half of evolution sometimes.

Then I look at the male/female status online and realise it's fair.


I mean, when we're not being distracted by girls, males tend to rule online.

Forget about complaining about sexual discrimination. The online world runs on sheer talent and skill alone. And as girls are new on the scene - they've only been online in numbers bigger than single digits over the last few years - they haven't had the time to get the skills required.

Since the age of 11 I've been a fairly promiment figure in whatever I happen to be doing at the time. If I decide to join an alliance I'm the leader, or amongst the leadership. Or simply given rights. If I decide to join a game and things like moderator or administrator spots come up for grabs I'll apply.

It's given me an impressive list of titles, not least amongst which were the "Lord of One Million Horses, Count over Castle Island, Manager of The Isles, Second-In-Command to the High Lord of the Second Dominion, Founder and Leader of the Guild of Merchants, High General of the Heavenly Flames" and a few more besides. The list goes on.

Generally I don't use that many of them. I could literally fill up pages with titles and jobs I've had in various alliances and groups over the years. The point is, however, that most people won't have heard of them. People are notorious for forgetting things.

Taking a few of those as examples...

Lord of One Million Horses was something given to me by one of my old leaders when I was the first person in the entire alliance to ever actually manage to hit the 1,000,000 horsemen mark (Horsemen being one of the strongest units in that particular games.) But that game died about 2 years ago and got taken over by a different company who had different ideas for the game and therefore ruined it. So I forgot about that title.

Count over Castle Island and Manager of The Isles are both referring to the same game. I'm still both of those titles, but there's only about 500-700 members on that game, and both of those titles refer to places which are in sore need of updating and revitalising, but I simply don't have the time required (probably several months of continuous playing) to do what is needed. Not many people have ever heard of the game again, so it's pointless.

The High Lord of Dominon was a good friend of mine, and so Second-In-Command was more due to the fact that I was the only other member in that particular wing of the alliance. Until I started recruiting and brought in about 200 members. In a week. My fingers ached for days after I'd finished from the sheer amount of messages I'd sent out over the web to various people in various different styles and languages. Was very good practise for writing letters though. Everything from formality to informatlity to commanding to subservient was used to get people to join. Adaptability is the key!

The Guild of Merchants is probably the most famous of these. It was the only one of any of my titles which spread across more than one game with the same aim and which managed to dominate those games for a time until I got distracted by a new game. It was an organisation of the best money makers across several games, not least of which included Travian, 1000AD, Ferion and many other strategy games.

Through the use of practically unlimited supplies of money - as we had several hundred members, all of whom could produced literally billions of ingame money overnight, wheras everyone else in the game struggled to hit 100 million in a week - we brought our way up to the top of several games, our success being most obvious in 1000AD where all the top 20 were Guild of Merchants members and most of the top 100 had some connection to us.

Money is a very useful tool... especially when you can dominate games with it.

Full marks go to the people who consistently stood against us, by never actually using the ingame markets. They do, however, lose all those marks for then dying in horrible ways because we got bored of being pacifists overnight and waltzed through some games leaving behind wide swathes of destruction.


If I could get the Guild of Merchants to work in real life, inflation would be a thing of the past. Prices would remain static, simply because the Guild of Merchants works by owning everything and selling it only to those that will use it and not sell it on.

I'm sure that the economy remaining dead and unalive would be fairly boring so I would slowly remove things like actual currency to conserve raw materials and develop a totally safe way of electronically transfering money.

Once currency has been totally eradicated from the system, then you can start to have fun. You lower the price at which you buy things - because by this point no one but you is buying anything - and you begin to lower the price at which you sell things to to the point where you make hardly any profit.

That way, anyone trying to cut in on your buisness fails, because their profit margins aren't enough to get a large enough buisness to support that sort of thing permamently.

Naturally, anyone that could organise something like this and manipulate global markets on this sort of scale would just conveniently die. You couldn't open up the markets like this... some people thrive on bad markets, and others thrive on the changes of the market that happen daily. A static economy is also fairly bad in terms of new developments. They have to get more and more expensive and so on.

You have to also remember that whoever controls the markets controls everything, so someone that had total control on the world would be seen to be bad. And so would be removed due to that.


On that sort of issue, lets consider the UN. And NATO.

Both of them are a sort of global peacekeeping force - although NATO use force to prevent force, and the UN people just sort of stand around saying, "Everyone hug each other! You'll all feel better, just don't carry knives whilst you are hugging each other!" and wear their funny little blue hat things.

The problem I see with global peacekeeping forces is that they decide whether or not the situation needs a peacekeeping force. So should they decide that England has beomce a threat to the security and health of the world by, for instance, setting out plans for a nucleur reactor that requires x amount of uranium that is enough for a nuke just big enough to wipe out a district or two in the middle of london, they'd just waltz in and invade.

Look at Iraq.

The USA, who are part of both the UN and NATO, amonst other things, were like "Hello Saddam! How are you today? Do you want some tanks? Okay.. here you go. That'll be $250,000,000 please. Oh... and we'll throw in some machine guns, a stinger missile or two and the capability for you to defend yourself against Iran, who we're also selling weapons to so that they can attack you."

So they sell Iraq and Iran all these weapons. And then? They shout "IRAQ HAVE GOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND ARE ABOUT TO START A WAR WITH US!!!" and invade, steal the oil, kill the populace, remove the dictator, start an anarchist situation and then say "The problems solved, we didn't find any, everyone move out."

It was a fairly cunning plan. The moment any country looks like it might start establishing a personal identity in walks the USA and takes it away. Look at Britain. The USA started up the food chain McDonalds - although calling what they sell food is taking the word food to the outer limits of belief, possibility and definition - and BOOM! There goes all our teenagers... and our sense of what good food is.

I have this dislike of America.

Not only do they do all that I've just listed, but they also steal all the English inventions. The telephone, the road system, rubbish political systems, the internet and more besides are all English inventions (although it's arguably the Greeks that the English stole the political system off. It depends on whether or not the Greek idea of Democracy was actually a fair one. Not that the English one is fair mind, but it's nice to keep up appearances.)

And America has taken them, changed them slightly, sold them onto the world in huge numbers and called them "American."

A brief look at my computer confirms this belief that the Americans stole all our ideas.

The default language for MS Word and any other microsoft product is "U.S. English" as opposed to "UK English." The way that they pronounce and spell some words definitely seperates the two, but the word "English" when talking about American language just doesn't quite fit in in my opinion.

Other than to prove my point that is.

As I managed to miss the bus this morning I think I'll keep todays blog as a fairly short one and leave it here.

Night night!!!

14th September

Today I had to go to work. I work in churches around where I live as an organist. I'm not a religious person, in fact - I'm not even Christian. So why do I work at churches I hear you ask. The answer is quite simple. It pays relatively well. At £15/service it's about £7-10 an hour. Which is plenty.

It's as much as the adult organists get paid for the same job, which goes to show just how equalitarian churches are.

Apart from the pay, which is always nice, there's also the experience side of things. Experience of sitting through things I don't find particularly interesting, experience of playing the organ so I can garner enough to be given a wedding at £100/hour. Is always useful. Finally, of course, there is the contacts. There's no point in being the best accompanist in the known world if you don't have contacts.

And I'm nowhere near the best so I need even more contacts.

I'm beginning to get a reputation for myself or something. Within a few days of me turning up at my new school I was playing for their choir, chamber choir and jazz band. I was also in a concert - at five days notice - where I was expected to provide up to 5 minutes light amusement for the masses. Now it's all very well this, and certainly shows that I'm beginning to get something of a reputation for myself - if only because the music teacher had heard me play previously and thought "Well, I could do with a pianist and he seems like quite a decent one."

However, I think the thing that demonstrates my point even more is the fact that I walk into my new school and I get teachers saying hello to me, I get peers already knowing me, I get people screaming at me and wondering why the hell I'm at their school and I get girls running up to me and asking me if I'm "that pianist that plays the piano for that pantomime thingy" in the local village.

Not that I'm complaining about the female attention, which I'm sure some people will take that last bit as saying.

Being properly famous must be nice. However, I think it must also be worrying. When you see all these people in the newspapers, on the news, on the radio and so on you don't think "well wait a minute.. they're just another person!" You think "WOW! It's them!" I think that they must really get pissed off with the world. I mean.. they have to be them all the time. They can't drop out of character.


The other thing about being famous, of course, is that it doesn't pay that well. They get all these people asking them to do stuff like sign books.. but you can't make a fortune out of it. You make a fortune out of becoming famous, which is the one thing that everyone tends to forget. Once you are famous you tend to get free upgrades, free meals, invites to parties where you can appropriate food and other ways of living on absolutely no money every day.

Just for once I'd like to see a famous person trying to get on a bus somewhere, at the same time as me, where there's only one place available on the bus and then see how much they offer me to not get on the bus.

Alternatively they'll just call for their limo, which is most probably hiding round a corner, but it's nice to imagine making a fortune out of ripping off someone that made lots of money by getting to be famous.

Famous people irritate me though. Forget about all the crowds, and publicity, and the way they pay for just about nothing because everyone offers them free stuff and think of it in terms of the bigger picture.

Here they are... wandering around, wearing designer clothes that cost a fortune and that get chucked out after one wearing because they're not new, and a few thousand miles south of them is a country where those clothes would be ripped apart by the crowds simply because they would be arguing too hard over who deserves them most.

And what do these famous people do? Do they give all their money to charity and live off of nothing, like they could do, or do they just keep the money and do "Charity events" that raise a few hundred thousand pounds, as opposed to the millions that they could just hand over on a platter? Scrap the general idea of making people work for something to make them think they've earnt it, if I ever become a millionaire and decide to be charitable, I won't do it by running charity events. It'll just be a mater of ringing up whichever charity I particularly like at that moment and saying "Do you want a million pounds? Would you like it as a cash transfer or a check?"

It gets the same thing done, with less organizational chaos, less work and also saves however many man hours of charity work; all of which I'm sure they'll appreciate.


Going back to something I mentioned in the midst of all that, designer clothes are one of the worst things ever invented. Forget for the moment that they're made in factories in countries where welfare standards aren't so high, and think of it like this... You get Nikes, Adidas and whatever the other sort of trainer is all coming off of the same production line, with only one change in which logo is stuck onto it. They're the same bloody thing!

And of course, people immediately go for the more expensive, "better" pair. It's the logic of money expenditure. The more money you spend on something the better the something is. So if I go and buy myself a pair of trainers that fit, are comfortable and will last about 12 months for a tenner, I'm not as "cool" as the person that spends 120 quid for the same pair of trainers with a few changes that mean they have to be broken in, don't fit and are never comfortable and last about 2 months until they need to upgrade to the latest model.

Socioeconomical unfairness I call it. I spend less money over the same period of time and still end up with less money at the end of the year than them... simply because they get given all this money to burn up on clothing.

And I earn my money, and then promptly spend it all on computer monitors, computer games or whatever else it is that I'm working towards buying at that particular moment in time. I don't get pocket money, I just get free board and keep. Which is fair enough. It's more than I'm expecting to get in the real world.

The point is, however, that in ten years time (or however soon it actually as) when I get kicked out of the house to fend for myself I'll have better money managing skills and be able to think about long term things instead of "oooh.. look.. a new set of trainers that only cost 120 quid.. lets spend all this weeks wages on them and get into debt by buying food."

However, it doesn't mean that I'm happy with the situation.Given a choice between having whatever I wanted at this moment in time (material objects that is) and having to save up myself to get them I'd choose to take the things. Possibly.

Having just said that I'm now tempted to take it back and say that I wouldn't, as the idea of having something is often much better than the reality - something that many people fail to understand and are therefore disappointed when they get something because it doesn't match their perceived specifications.

At least I go and do market research into whatever I'm buying. It's called putting a topic like "Money to burn, but what on?" on HEXUS - which is the forum I'm sure I've mentioned frequently before this point. If they all tell me to buy something - such as The Witcher - then I go and do a little proper research into it, discover just how much of the game is scantily clad women and then decide if it's worth the £15 to watch all these women run around the screen wearing not much.

In the case of The Witcher, it was decided that the parents might walk in at an inopportune time and therefore not a good game to buy at the moment.

Give me a few years.

However, I did also look at Mass Effect and NeverWinter Nights 2, and hopefully they will be sent off from the nice people at Game tomorrow - presuming I can borrow my parents credit card on the conditions of repayability at some point in the next 3 days and use that - and I will have something other than Spore to play for a month or two till I get round to buying a new game.


I've been accused of rambling on too much you know.

I'm barely a week into this and already people are complaining. I don't know whether it's a bad sign that they're complaining or a good sign that they're reading it all. I don't think anyone has yet managed to read through the entire thing, although I'll probably give this entire thing to my English teacher in a paper form and see what she makes of it.

She'll probably give me an F for bad language, lack of proper grammar and punctuation and the worst spelling this side of my other self who can spell a lot better than I can. I mean, I swear a few times here and there. Mostly to get my point across, or because it's generally seen as more emotive than many other words or whatever. The point is it's swearing.

I know that many people don't consider pissed to be bad language, or bloody, or any of the other mild swear words I use throughout the document. The point is, however, is that they're words I wouldn't be using in front of my parents or in front of anyone under about 11 - and at 11 I still wouldn't be using them lots - or at all that much in any situation.

There's much better ways of being emotive.

Subtleties such as a slight undertone to what you're saying, or an underlying theme to a more plain one can subconsciously make someone feel more emotive and achieve the desired effect a lot more easily than using swear words. That is, after all, how speeches work. You could ask a series of rhetorical questions designed to make people agree with you, and then when you start being more radical they're dragged along because they already think that they are agreeing with you.

This idea of people following you because they have before has been extremely useful to me. I'm the sort of person that everyone will copy at school I'll get people sitting all round me just asking if they can copy this piece of work or the other piece of work or whatever. They'll steal my answers and then say them. And I'll be left like a lemon, improvising on the spot.

Although lemons may not be able to improvise. I don't know, I've never asked lemons questions like, "what is the cube root of 64?"

Back to the main point, once people begin to rely on you for answers you can begin to lead them into the realms of a world beyond a world where you can say just about anything and get away with it. Last academic year provides adequate proof for this.

We had to do persuasive speeches in English. Everyone else chose nice easy topics like "Animal Cruelty" or "Euthanasia." I ran off and researched "The Events of 9/11: A terrorism attack or a government ploy?" Now then, the immediate reaction to anyone even suggesting such a thing is to laugh in the suggestors face. So I used this as a persuasive technique.

I got them to laugh at me, to see it as a thing of humor. Then I sobered up the entire thing.

By making it a joke straight off I'd established what they thought would be the tone of the entirety of the speech. A jokey speech that wasn't going to be all that serious that proved just how little I thought of English. The moment I turned it into a vaguely serious speech - as in, removed the jokey sides - about 20 seconds in the entire room just went quiet.

It made them think, and my totally biased evidence and degradation of the Americans made more than just a few people wonder if I'd lost my senses, and a few others begin to question the official stories. The point is, however, that the technique works. And if the viewpoint isn't so radically different to what everyone's normally is then its generally enough to sway an argument into your case. Sobering up conversations means that an entire new level of seriousness is added in.

Sobering up - what a lovely figure of speech. Maybe it just shows how much sense the average person makes when drunk...

The other techniques other than this one can be more subtle. You can make the jokey side seem more subliminal, so not laughing out loud. Then where you don't have the jokes, those bits are remembered. I'd be willing to bet that nine out of ten people couldn't tell you exactly what some parts of this bog say simply because they were less serious than others. But certain lines, certain words will stick out, and they will haunt you.

Of course, you have the rhetoric. Which is always useful. Coupled with say... the power of three... you have an extremely powerful tool. The natural emphasis of the power of three and the persuasiveness of rhetorical devices means that those parts where the two techniques are combined often become the bits that are remembered.
It's not something you can see so much in this, mostly because I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, other than myself of my sanity.

And I'm failing at that.



It's time for another introduction or three! Yeah! Don't you feel so special?

You know Charlotte? That friend I mentioned earlier (several times actually, but y'know... I only mentioned her by name once) who gets mad at me? Well she's got this boyfriend. His name's Jack, and as I also mentioned earlier, he's the sort of person that'll sit on a computer for as long as possible.

Jack's a lovely lad. He never seems to do anything with his time, and therefore if you ring him up, most of the time is there. The exception being recently, after I suggested to Charlotte that she saw Jack more often. Since then, Jack hasn't been so readily available to pester. Can't imagine why. He's a little younger than me, about 9 months, and holds the current record for most people at his house at once in sleeping bags.

For some reason, we always nick his house to have sleepovers in. It's fun. He has some ridiculously huge TV in a fairly big room, and he has an XBOX and between everyone that turns up we can get 4 controllers. Forget about watching porn and all the other things that everyone expects boys to do at sleepovers, give us Halo 3, an XBOX and 4 controllers and we're set for the night!

Although, admittedly, we did have to resort to going on his computer last time, so that we all could be thrashed at Rome: Total War by Jack and so that Jack could help everyone thrash me, as they wouldn't stand a chance otherwise. Well, maybe a chance, but not much of one. Me and Jack tend to practice too much on that game.

When we're not having massive sleepovers there I seem to go round anyway. He has a good computer and therefore plays good games. The old fashioned RTS (Real-Time-Strategy) games such as Dawn of War and it's more modern expansion packs such as Soulstorm, Dark Crusade and the unofficial ones which probably exist to replace every unit with a naked women.

No he doesn't have that last one. I'm just guessing it exists, as most games have a nudity patch somewhere. Look at the Sims... some dirty minded sod looked at that game and thought "CHEAP PORN!" and made a nudity patch for it. The state of gamers these days! It's disgraceful.

He also would play the First Person Shooters such as Battlefield 2142 and Battlefield 2, but he can't get them to work online due to Vista's sheer stupidity. So typical. He does however have Team Fortress, which he declines to play for one reason or another. I think he just doesn't like it.

Also amongst the people that I know is a little chap named Craig. He is also a fairly good little boy, with little being the important word here. To say that if the world was to flood he'd be one of the first to know about it is putting it in a really nasty way. But one that I did and that most of the people nearby - including a teacher - laughed at. I was so mean to him. I do apologize to him if he ever reads this.

It was all my fault. And certainly not yours. In anyway. Excepting those in which it was. Which I won't mention here. As I have a sense of propriety...

He's the sort of person that all girls feel the need to defend and all boys feel the need to attack. It got to the point last year where most of the little group of friends that we had at our old school were getting blamed for it simply because we were his friends and therefore had to be aware of every last thing that he did.

We didn't, as unlike our old form tutor we weren't strange people that had misguided interests in what the others were doing all the time. We preferred our dinners INSIDE our stomachs, not spread liberally over all the walls nearby.

I never really got on with him that well to be honest. Which is probably why I never really got on all that well with Neal - who be another one of those people that everyone immediately reacts to, although Neal garnered entirely different reactions. I'll leave it to your imaginations as to what those reactions were. Although you'll probably come up with something totally dirty, and atypical of what most sensible fourteen year olds get up.

Or maybe it's not atypical and it's just that most of the fourteen year olds that I know ARE atypical?

The final one in the little group of boys that we had in year 9 (little meaning small in numbers, not in height, as although they were all mostly smaller than me this must have been due to my abnormalities and not theirs, as EVERYONE was smaller than me.) was a very apologetic person named Alistair. Or Ali, as his given name was.

He played the electric guitar. Left-Handed. Naturally, if he was going to do something like learn to play the guitar he wouldn't just choose any old guitar, he'd choose the most expensive cheap guitar he possibly could - hence the left-handed bit. The price difference between right handed and left handed is about £100-300. Depending on what model you get.

His current dream is to live in Forza, have as much money as he does on the game and never die. He's a fairly unimaginative chap.

When I said he was apologetic, I didn't just mean very. I meant totally. Anything that happened within 5 metres of him was something he apologized for. I've seen him apologize for doing the right thing in the right way at the right time, and apologize even more so for doing something the wrong way at the right thing somewhere near the right time. It did give a sense of humor to his otherwise fairly unhumourous character, but it also got tiresome. He used to get lots of "SHUT UP ALI!" when he got too far into apologizing and not enough into realizing that it wasn't his fault.

That's three more introductions for today.. I'll probably think up some more for tomorrow.

It's like a weakest link thing only in the opposite direction. "You are the weakest link! Hello!"

On that note I absolutely hate that program. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, I have this inbred hatred of bullies. It comes of being a victim for many of my 14 years of life. Ann Robinson, or Anne Robinson, or however it is that you spell the awful woman's name, fulfils most of the criteria for a bully several times over.

She laughs at people. she takes the piss out of their life, their job, their ambitions and leaves them with basically nothing. She also gives out this impression of simply not really caring - which although she probably doesn't - which is more offensive than all her other habits. She's rude, vulgar, lacks manners and - more to the point - is ugly.

Non-ugly people can get away with a lot more and if they smile sweetly enough can pass through your life like a comet through the atmosphere. On fire, briefly and with a big explosion at the end. A metaphorical fire and explosion obviously, but the subliminal message remains pretty much identical.

I think that there must be lots of problems with being an object of desire. It's not like being rich where you have to wonder if people are after you only for the money, it's more like being a solid gold trophy.... something to be waved around so that men can preen and show you off. Although, naturally, I'm guessing that women do the same thing to men and preen and show them off. I don't know. I don't pay much attention to the physcology and actions of women.

Once you've learnt how one person reacts most of the rest are shockingly easy to predict. That is, one type of person, not actually one person. Everyone's unique, until you look beyond the surface at what lies beneath and start actually thinking about their actions in simpler terms than the more common terms.

When you look out at the world at the street, you occasionally see someone pick up a coin. the male brain follows something along the lines of;

"...RLS! Oooh! Look. A person. Walking along the street. Is it female? Ah well, can't have everything I suppose. What are they doing now? They're looking around quickly. Nervously perhaps. Maybe they're a criminal! But the odds of that are pretty low. Let's carry on watching. They're bending over now, bit of a quick mover when they want to be it seems. Fairly limber as well. Ooh! Another person. Person 1 is pretending to be doing up a shoelace now. Maybe they don't want to be seen doing whatever it is that they're doing. Person 2 has walked past them, giving them a funny look. So would I. I mean.. doing up your shoelace bent double? Doesn't work! Okay, Person 2 has run off, Person 1 picks up a coin. What sort of coin is it? A penny? Maybe it's note. Scabs. Although if I saw a twenty quid note I wouldn't turn it up. Maybe they're a tramp. Now then, back to what I was thinking about before I was so rudely disturbed... GI...!"

Those actions can be summed up fairly easily in much simpler terms than those.

Person 1 is walking along the street. He sees a coin and decides that he wants to pick it up. However, he doesn't want to be seen doing this, so checks before he does and also when someone does turn up he pretends to be doing something else. He then continues along, with the coin pretending nothing happened.

Person 2 wonders what is wrong with Person 1 and then dismisses them out of their mind for the simple reason that they don't matter all that much in the bigger picture. It might be mentioned later to someone, maybe not. In the entirety of the picture it doesn't matter all that much. They can see what Person 1 is really doing but don't give a damn and therefore pretend not to notice to be polite.

In simpler terms than those, Person 1 is someone who needs money. Person 2 doesn't care about Person 1 or what they're doing. Person 1 cares about what they think Person 2 is thinking about them and therefore is extremely self-conscious.

It applies on a much bigger scale. If you are caught doing something you know wouldn't be necessarily seen as good, or polite or just know that it's something that would be unacceptable behavior in the bigger world, you pretend to be doing something else.

Generally you can guess what other people are doing, but just don't care unless it involves you or someone you know. There's too many people in your life for you to worry about one more - which is what taking any notice of someone else would start to do.


Because of these actions it's fairly easy to guess what is going on. If someone immediately starts doing something when you walk into a room you know that what they were doing before was something that they thought you wouldn't want them to be doing and therefore pretend to be doing something else. In the same way your actions reflect what you think.

Therefore to hide your actions you have to do far more than just cover them up. You have to be prepared to cover them up. Everything I do has at least two purposes, occasionally more. This, for instance, is extremely therapeutic and is also useful in terms of writing practice. It also amuses me which is normally fairly hard to do.

Sorry - that should read "People's reactions to this amuse me, which is normally fairly hard to hard to do." Although saying that, people constantly amuse me simply by existing or by walking past. I see the humor in situations where no one else can. It makes me a hard person to get along with, unless you also have my sense of humor and see the jokes in life.

I'd be surprised if you do. I've yet to find that someone that has the same sense of humor as me.

13th September

I didn't write anything yesterday. It's a very simple reason why... basically I was too busy being distracted by Spore to take any notice of minor things like food, sleep and other incidental things. You can tell what I like doing the most out of most of my interests can't you?

I often think there should be a gamer's anonymous.

Held in the crypt of a decrepit old church where you can stand up in the shadows and say "My name is Bob and I've gone without games for the last 12 hours." And then go on to grouch about how hard it's been, how you were tempted by an advert on TV, and how depression drove you to it.

I mean, a GA would be something that would cure many people of a terrible affliction. The first step to curing any problem is to admit you have one. The only problem I have with this is that I don't CARE if I have a problem.. it's my problem and I'm going to sort it. Possibly. If I get round to it before it consumes my life, which it hasn't already. Honest!

When I'm not thinking about gaming as some terrible affliction or addiction I often also think that there should be a Gamer's Union. I mean.. if you can have student unions and teacher unions gamers should have one as well. Just because no one is really that interested in what a bunch of gamers do because we don't provide a public service or make usage of a public service (although usage of a public service when talking about students might be taking it to the outer limits of the usage of the word "usage") doesn't mean that we shouldn't have a union.

Surely if we all went on strike and refused to buy games then the gaming industry would suffer! But the other major problem with this is that there's not really all that much that I want enough to go and start something as wide scale as this. Could you imagine the sheer organistational chaos of it if you had to organise it? Would be analogous to getting an army to move, only much harder as lots of gamers would rather buy a game and then play it than not buy it and have to play the last version of it.

However, with the release of SecuROM I'm beginning to think that a gamer's union might not be so bad. Okay, I can see some of the reasons why it MIGHT be a good idea.. but online activation is awful. On my decent computer I don't have an internet connection. I have the better of the computers available to me in my bedroom. It means I can play games without having parents whine at me over my shoulder.

Or should that be nag at me? Afterall, they aren't dogs.

On the downside of this arangement is that things like Spore - which require internet activation - are an absolute pain to get working. First off I have to get the actual game. With Spore this isn't so bad.. but say it's something like Half Life 2. I have to go and find steam, spend however long it is trawling through it to find the actual game and so on.

Then, once I've got the game I've got to install it. Relatively simple, I can pull an internet connection out whilst doing this so that I'm not constantly using up bandwith for whoever I've stolen the internet off of today (either my parents or my brother depending on whose in and more importantly, who isn't.)

Then I have to activate it online. So this means waiting 5 minutes for it all to load, clicking through half a dozen boxes, creating 3 different accounts on 2 different servers, downloading content I don't need or want, and more besides. It's a waste of time!

And of money for that matter.

Let's say I get charged at £5/1gb internet usage.. which is about right in terms of wireless internet I think. So I've just downloaded 800 megabytes of stuff I didn't want to download. So that's £4 straight off. Now I'm not some rich kid with money to burn. I have better things to spend my money on than stuff I don't want.

Sometimes I wonder why pirates are pirates. Then I look at what it takes to not be a pirate and realise that maybe some of them just couldn't be bothered with legalities and skipped over it and took the £25 discount as a useful way to be able to afford another 10 litres petrol to get into work tommorrow.

It's enough to make a sane man wonder if it's worth being sane any longer, and drive them into the wonderful realms of insanity, where they might meet me.

So going back to the original point, if you had a gamer's union they could just refuse to buy any game with this sort of ridiculously stupid protection. So let's say you get 100,000 gamers to be in the union. And they don't buy it.

Now Spore.. I think that prehaps 5 million people will have bought it. Now if 100,000 people hadn't bought it then what will EA have lost? About 1/50 of their total profits, which are so high that 1/50 can be taken without a single notice, or without it being altogether noticed that much.

If all gamers joined up to the union then you'd lose about 20 million sales over the world. That is.. America, England, Japan and China (although China's piracy rate is so high that it's nearly cheaper to learn Chinese and buy everything in china from the official retailers who drop their prices to compete with the black market in China.) Now 20 million sales of a game where the predicted sales were prehaps 20-30 million would be noticed.

I'm guessing at 20 million by the way. It is probably a lot lower.

But what would they say? They'd blame it on the consoles, or not bring out games on PC anymore. What it would take to get them to change their policy would be practically universal union. So 360 users and PS3 users and PC users all refusing to buy games. Although getting those three together without an infinitely long discusison about which one is the better of three is practically impossible.

If you could get multinational union between gamers and they all refused to buy games with DRM then you would suddenly get a massive influx of piracy, a large amount of letters being sent out to many people by EA threatening them with legal action and a reduction in the prices of games across the market.

But would DRM be removed?

I'm guessing not. Afterall, that would be testamount to saying that they were always wrong to having it on there and that co-ordinated efforts to prevent piracy were all misguided. Not going to happen. Because of this, the computing market will take a hit and we'll see an awful lot more releases for consoles.

The age of the console gamer will begin properly with very little choice but to become a gamer on a console if you want to carry on gaming. Strategy games will no longer be marketed and my favourite genre will become as dead as the dust. Similar to age old civilizations ruined due to catastrophic events, we'll see the last remnants of the civilization clinging onto what they know best hoping for revitalisation.

It's a gloomy picture of the future, but one that I'm afraid will be happening all too soon.


Today, amongst other things, also happens to be the day when I put all of this up on the web for anyone that cares enough about my mental state to really want to look at what my previously private writings were.

The purpose of this entire thing has changed three times in as many days. Originally it was going to be a diary. Then I was going to take extracts from it and use them to not have to bother doing anything for english homework beyond find the relevant bit of the entire thing. And now it's a blog. Well.. that's just fine. You can see the non-existant change over time can't you!

Prehaps this says an awful lot about how I think. It runs to just about no discernable pattern, takes jumps where no one else even thought it had legs, and swims in no water that doesn't exist, or possibly does depending on how much you believe in the power of dreams and in the non-existance of what we percieve to be reality.

Apparently this is also fairly amusing. To the wider world that is. I mean, I get my jokes but generally no one else does. Or I see humour in a situation and everyone else wonders what is going on that is so funny. I have this sense of humour that no one else understands. And then I start writing something like this and suddenly everyone sees the joke. Or jokes. Or the lack of jokes and the total presence of humour.

Afterall, jokes amd humour aren't the same thing. As far as I'm aware.

I also have a habit of telling extended jokes. As in.. very long ones. By the time I get to the end I've frequently either forgotten the beginning and the entire purpose behind the joke, no one else remembers the beginning or the end or everyone has got bored. Even I don't get my jokes sometimes. Which says alot about my jokes I suppose.

Jokes and my humour don't mix. I'll stick to making the much better humourous things that I do as opposed to what everyone else does, thank you!

It shows that I have a sense of individuality. Unlike many modern teenagers. I mean... the modern teenager will show their individuality by listening to the same music, dressing in the same way, with the same hairstyle, talking about the same things and acting the same way. I'd much rather show my individuality by being different. And laugh at the world for being so bland and boring and identical.

The other comments I've had on this so far, as of publication on the web (extracts on the 11th+12th, full version 13th) are mostly positive, with only those I've asked to proofread picking up on the many small things I've got all over each thing. Someone who read the extracts asked for the full thing, which they got. Someone else suggested I made a blog (hence me doing so) and other people questioned the half truths I told them about using it as coursework.

Well.. okay... more lie than half-truth, but it sounded good and meant that they copyedited it for me, which was the important thing.

My thanks go to Brucelles, or whatever his real name is, for his precise corrections of the first extract, although I did ignore a few of them as I couldn't remember things like that well enough to get them upstairs and onto this computer I'm writing them on.

This all makes sense somehow.

I have a computer with no internet connection and a computer with an internet connection. I therefore write the stuff for my blog on the computer without the internet connection and then run it downstairs, badger my parents till I can use the computer that can read memory sticks and put it onto the computer with an internet connection that I can use. I then copy and paste it off of there onto the web and post it.

Like I said, it must make sense somehow.

Maybe my logic behind it is that I then have at least 3 digital copies of it, in case I manage to lose one somewhere. Though, naturally, the chances are that if I lose a digital copy it'll be the mastercopy which is the one that has all the days on it and then I'll have to spend a good hour recompiling it.

I mean.. that makes even less sense!

I write it once, then I copy it into a master file titled "ramblings" so that I can read through the entire thing without having to load three or four files. Why don't I just write it into the masterfile? Well.. I did... and then I started giving out extracts, as I thought some of it was too personal to be spreading around that easily. As it is, I just couldn't eventually be bothered to do this, so ended up with the entirity of the file on the internet, in lots of pieces on my computer and more besides.

If I could have mucked it up anymore I'd be some sort of award winning mucker-upper. I presume you can get awards for things like that.. They do still give out Best Politician of the Year awards right? They just call it a Prime Ministership and leave it at that.

Who can lie the best, with a little bit of bribery and corruption mixed in and the occasional bit of cannibilism in the houses for when they get really hungry and the person opposite them has been arguing against them for the entirity of today.

Sorry.. they don't argue. They "debate." Which is like arguing but with better public relations and better pay.


On a different note; as anyone who has a big sister will know they are close to the most annoying thing on this planet as you can get. Excepting of course, little sisters. Little sisters transceed annoyance. They take it to an art form. I am one of the unlucky people who have the bad luck to have both a big sister and a little sister.

Although it means more birthday presents and christmas presents, I begin to doubt that it is actually worth it.

Luckily enough, my big sister is at boarding school. The pros of this are fairly easy to see: no competition for internet access, no one stealing the food in the house apart from me. That sort of thing. The cons of it are that whenever she is home she presumes she has the right to the computer and to the internet connection and therefore I get less than the mandantory 12 hours a day. I mean... losing an hour or two of my precious time on the computer every day? How can I survive? Other than by going on this computer that I'm writing this on though. She's not allowed on MY computer. Mostly because it's mine, but y'know..

Unforntunately for me, my little sister is actually quite little. She's about 6 years younger than me, which means she's a mere 3/5 of my age. She has this habit of walking into my bedroom without knocking, chaperoning my MSN conversations and more besides. I can't even have a semi-decent conversation on the phone without her walking in when I'm trying to talk to someone.

I've tried to instill basic manners in her... lock the toilet door when you go into the bathroom, knock on my door before you come in - more importantly, wait for a RESPONSE before you come in, and so on. I've also failed to instill these manners in her.

I think she gets it from the parents. They walk into my bedroom without knocking all the time, attempt to chaperone my MSN conversations (although they mostly fail) and listening in on any conversations I have.

Recently I gave my little sister one of my three old computers. She was bothering me, as per usual, and being so tired of her asking to go on my computer I went and found my parents - who happened to be downstairs - and asked if she could have one of them. The response was yes, and so I kept her occupied for a few hours by telling her to tidy up her diabolicly dirty bedroom.

Although I can't really talk about dirty bedrooms... mine is just as bad, if not worse. I am male afterall.

Then I went and dug out a computer (literally dug... it was hiding beneath piles of clothes, washing and various other things) and a monitor (more digigng for the monitor) and found my box of spare wires and my bag of screws and put it back together for her (as most of the computers in my bedroom are in various states of dissemblement pending repair) and then found an extension wire... which was quite hard given I use most of mine... that she could use, set it all up and there she had it. A computer.

And in the next 10 minutes I had about 6 knocks on my door as she failed spectaculary to work out how to turn on the computer, log onto a thing that had no password, load up a disc, install a game and a few other things that pass my mind for the sheer ineptness of skill which was required to get through them

I correct my earlier statement of her being able to complete an ICT GCSE. She would not only be able to complete it, but she would also be able to pass it with distinction. Despite all the gaps in her knowledge she still knows more about computers than most people in my class simply from watching me scream at my computer screen because it's not doing the correct thing the correct way.


Some things stick in your mind more than others. And some things haunt your dreams and drag your conscience kicking and screaming across the world of imagination. I saw something like that the other day.

It was simply a poster of a piece of the world where there was no life, nothing. Not even a cacti or a snake or beetle. It was desolate, barren. And the caption simply read "Is this what you want our world to be like in 50 years time?"

It made me think.

It was, of course, talking about the legendary fable of Global Warming. As I see Global Warming there's a few problems with the common theory of Carbon Dioxide filling up the atsmosphere and therefore heating up the planet.

If all this gas is filling up the atsmosphere it also blocks out light, meaning that not only is it letting less heat get out, but it is also letting less heat get in. Therefore, it's staying approximately the same temperature, with the deficiencies in temperature fitting in with a broad band of about a million years - although many of those temperatures are guesses and not actual exact figures, as humankind has only been around for 40000 of them.

Also, if the planet is warming up, why are we heading for an ice age? Surely all this ice that they're talking about will act like giant icecubes, cooling the earth down, so that the ice age will be prevented. Or even better.. all that sunlight and warmth that they're saying is coming in will melt the ice, meaning that we'll have a Noah's Ark type scenario where the world floods.

Either way, an Ice Age won't happen.

However, let's say that Global Warming is happening - which there is some proof for, as always. So we have on one hand, all these natural causes, such as animal flatulence, volcanos erupting, swamp gas escaping. On the other hand we have humankind. Now then, pit man against nature and nine times out of ten nature wins. As a man recently survived in the jungle after a crash landing I think that man has had the one time in ten and therefore nature will win this argument.

Surely we could blame nature instead of nurture for causing global warming. I mean... they've decided that some criminals are criminals by nature and not by nurture, so it's only logical it applies to a much bigger scale.

I'm sure that's personification on a ridiculously large scale, coupled with logic of similary ridicularity, and so I'll stop there. I tend to make less and less sense as I go on. The moments of lucidity escape me you see.

Must be a male thing.

A cool little site I found

One of my friends, if that is the right word to describe someone I met on the internet, has his own little games site.

It's pretty cool... Has both of the World's Hardest Games on (1+2) so you've got something to keep you occupied for a few days now.

http://flashgaming.co.nr/
Try it out sometime!

A little note

I don't know whether or not these things are timestamped, but I'm guessing they are.

Well today is the 13th.. and I just posted things for the 9th, 10th and 11th. I didn't do one on the twelth.

The reason behind me posting so many days at once is that I have to catch up with the calender. I got there now, so I'll start posting them as I write them instead of sometime after.

11th September

I've just been reminded, rather brutally, that the world ended yesterday and that this is the afterlife. In which case, I ask myself, where are the flames and where are the succubi? I mean, most people I talk to are Christian, therefore I have this sort of pseudo-christian view of the afterlife.

My actual views are a lot more complicated and would take up about a page to explain. I'll do it in a second.

For example, an established belief in heaven and hell is important. Even if I don't want to go to heaven. I mean, yes, it might be alright for the first few days, but after a while you'd get bored of all these saintly people wandering around not doing that much. I think the word that we're looking for is "sucker-uppers" or "teacher's pet" or other similar derogatory term for someone that is unable to break the rules due to mental conditioning.

Having to follow the rules exactly, or at the very least ask for forgiveness for the infringements you make on those rules, implies that you must have a knowledge of the rules.

Now I'm not exactly hot on the bible, or rather, those parts that actually make sense, so I have to refer to my good old copy of it. I went to a church aided school. The leaving present for the year sixes was a bible.

I managed to accumulate 3 New Testaments, 1 Old Testament and two copies of both in one book from that school. They didn't quite realise that the bible doesn't change yearly.

Now then, let's say for the moment that the Old Testament doesn't matter. But unless I'm wrong, Jesus is heard to say at one point "follow the commandments of the father." Now then, commandments is just another word for commands right? So we're being told to unconditionally follow orders from a megalomaniac who has the power over life and death, heaven and hell and is all present, all being and the rest of it.

Politically, this sounds like a dictatorship. Follow orders or die horribly. Or spend eternity in hell.. which could be a much better option as it sounds so far.

Now let's set aside the issue of dictatorship and look instead at God's mental state. He has a son and a holy ghost... so he's halluncinating straight off. Ghosts? There's no actual proof either way, so as far as I'm could be concerned he's halluncinating. Then consider that he claims to be "Three in One." THAT sounds schizophrenic to me.

And when jesus decided to come and visit us on planet earth, he was reputed to turn water into wine, walk on water, die and come back (those necromancers have been around quite some time) and speak to devils in the wilderness. Now if I went around saying I spoke to demons and the devil I'd get branded a Satanist. Not a pagan, a satanist. There's a big difference which is mostly forgotten - thanks to Constantine. If I went around claiming to walk on water and turn water into wine I'd get thrown into a mental institute.

So here we have it... Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit depending on which personality was in control of his body at the time, was a schizophrenic, mentally unstable, pathological lying Satanist. He was also born on the wrong side of the bed sheets. And he was Jewish. He was also an anarchist, who preached sedition and if he existed in modern day then he'd be thrown in a jail.

A pet theory of mine is that all these people that are waiting for the second coming of Jesus the Messiah are too late. He turned up a few years back, walked into a church and declared "I AM THE MESSIAH!" and immediately got locked up in a mental institute for mental instability and classed as a risk to the general public.

I mean... what else would happen?


So let's compare this rather hellish heaven, as it is, to the common ideas of hell.

You get thrown to the demons, your soul gets devoured, you burn constantly and you have to do boring things repeatedly. There's a few problems with this straight off.

One: if you've just had your soul devoured you can't exactly suffer in hell. So let's presume that this doesn't actually happen and therefore your soul doesn't get devoured.

Two: if they're lying about one of the things can they substantiate the rest? I mean... boring things... what is boring to me might not be boring to another person and so on. So it'd require a limitless space in which to do this so as to keep all the trillions of people over time that have died from getting interested. And infinity is impossible. We can prove the universe had a beginning, and if it has a beginning it has an end so therefore it is not infinite. It is also not infinitely big, although it is stretching at a tremendous rate that is faster than the speed of light it does have outer limits. At which point it presumably curves back in on itself. A globe, so to speak. This only goes to prove that God cannot create infinity so this idea is also impossible.

Three: That's two things that have been disproved. Let's presume that all the bad stuff is just to make heaven seem better so that you don't mess around at school, at work, in life or "forget" to pay taxes.


So let's see what hell offers:

Very few rules.
Infinitely better personalities
Opportunities to break any rules that there are.
Anarchy
Personal demon attendants
Succubi
All those corrupt women you read about.


On the whole, Hell is starting to seem better. Apart from that bit about anarchy. Survival of the fittest never really appealed to me. You see - I have this remarkable talent... I can walk into a room full of people and about 10 minutes later they all want to kill me! It's amazing.

But let's say that I die due to the anarchy.. but only after spending 30 minutes with a succubi... whose only purpose in life is to corrupt you by having sex with you.

Now I'm not exactly too aware of issues like this, but 30 mintues of having a girl whose only purpose in life is to please you as opposed to getting you to marry them, have kids with them, buy them presents and expensive ones at that and more besides, seems like fair compensation for a relatively quick death and non-existance afterwards.

It's a bit like that thing I saw on a forum I frequent. It read:

"How to please a women

You can't. Don't bother trying.

How to please a man
Be female
Turn up naked
Bring food."

Upon deliberation with a few friends it was decided that added into that list could be things along the lines of "Bring friends" or "Don't expect a long-term relationship" but these would only spoil the moment.

Now these succubi... they're female - or appear it - and they turn up naked. Food is no longer a problem in the afterlife... mostly because you don't actually need to eat anything. As far as I'm aware. I don't have any experience of this myself. They also could find some friends, and aren't really interested in a relationship beyond getting you corrupted - which as you're in hell anyway you may as well do.

Now that is the sort of women that I could see some people totally agreeing to.

Personally I don't know. I'm not the sort of person that thinks about these things ahead of the time it actually happens... which is most probably never, hence why I don't bother thinking about things like that ahead of time.


So which is better; living in a total dictatorship or dying in a place where your needs as a man are garunteed until you die a second time? That is, afterall, all of 30 minutes.


Now I mentioned right at the beginning of today's ramblings that I'd mention my own beliefs at some point. Basically, in the simplest terms possible, I'm a polytheist. Meaning I believe in lots of gods. However, for me, believing in doesn't necessarily mean worshipping. I'll quite happily admit to believing in Krishna, Allah and God all in the same breath but I'll also quite happily admit to not actually worshipping them.

It has caused some problems in my given line of work.

As a church organist I have to play in churches - believe it or not. That means, according to some, that I should be a Christian, believe in one god and only one god and worship that god. I don't mind if they do all that, but personally it's not for me. Most religions have a bad history, which as far as I can see is caused by misinterpretation of the religous texts.

Which is something else I totally avoid. I just don't have a religous text.. I just have belief. Much simpler! And leaves no room for misinterpretation, or for that matter interpretation of any kind. It also means I get very few converts into my religion, but that doesn't bother me really as I know human rights include the right to belief whatever you want to, whether it be the belief in the Great Potato or the minor sect of englishmen that still worship Pan and the other old nature gods.

I don't even know the names of all the gods I believe in. How's that for belief? I just have faith that those gods exist in some form or nature and as long as I believe in them it doesn't actually matter what I call them.

Bit like some Christians saying that Muslims and Jews and themselves all believe in the same god.


Changing topic rather suddenly, I have never really liked poetry.

I find it mostly boring. Some of it is alright, but for the most part it's not long enough to interest me for more than a few minutes. You're supposed to sit there and think about them and what they mean and so on but I just don't have the patience. It's like english comprehension.

You have to dissect pieces of literature and rip them to pieces to examine why the author did such and such a thing at such and such a time. Obviously, the idea of "the author did this because they were drunk and it seemed like a good idea at the time" would require lots of evidence, so I have to do it properly. But it ruins the book for me.

Take, for instance, the book called "Holes" by Louis Sacher (I think that is how you spell it.) It is quite a good book. I enjoyed reading it... and then we had to do some stuff on it for english comprehension. On the first page alone we had to examine why they had a rattlesnake there instead of say... an amazonian jungle snake that wouldn't be in the middle of a desert if you found some way of paying it. We had to examine things like why certain words were used, and why other words weren't. At no point is it enough simply to say "The author did it because they did."

It drives me crazy.

I read a lot faster than I can type. I read about 100-200wpm if I'm scan reading. That is, if you haven't realised, most of this in under an hour. I think. I'm not sure, I'm using WordPad as opposed to say.. Microsoft Word.. so there isn't a nice simple word count button that I've found yet.

Downsides of not having a spare copy of it for this computer I suppose.

Even when I'm not scan reading I still read pretty fast meaning that in the time it takes you to read this sentence I'll have reread the last bit of what I've been typing and have started typing the next sentence. It can be irritating that I read so fast.
However, not all of it is bad. It means that things like plans can be read quickly and things like programs committed to memory even faster through repeated readings so that I'm not constantly referring to it to find out what's next. Also means that I can read through forums fairly quickly so I can actually keep two or three forum topics going simultaneously when people are responding pretty much simultaneously.

MSN conversations with me can be blindingly fast if I'm hyper.

I read what you say, type in about a paragraph and send it. By the time you've read that I've sent another one.. and another one.. and another one. You've got to actually stop me for a minute. One of my friends has found the best way... coincidentally the same friend that told me that starting this would be a good idea.

She tells me she'll be right back. Now then, as I can't prove anything either way, I think that when she gets back from whatever she is doing she catches up with what I said over the last five minutes and then replies to it in the same sentence as when she says "back." That sort of method works, although it does leave a lapse in the conversation where I get bored and look around for alternative sources of amusement.

Or worrying things.

For example, I mentioned that I have several girls playing the all-time favourite of "she fancies you" but now I have the slightly more concerning one of boys saying "she's made for you, you're made for her, you should get together." Matchmaking and boys just doesn't work.. pretty much like matchmaking and me.

In the miserable fourteen years of my life I've managed to spend somewhat bored on this planet I've often wondered why people feel the need to matchmake me. I don't generally express any interest in anyone, male or female, although my interests lie firmly with females. However, every relationship possible from threesomes to homosexual to a hetrosexual relationship has been suggested as a possible one for me.

It is, as I said, worrying.

However, I think that the more worrying thing for me is when the matchmakers actually hit near the target. I can laugh off the more extreme ones, or just ignore the ones that worry me or that would never interest me, but the ones that hit the target are the ones I have to be careful with. Once again it's a matter of juggling what I think other people's reactions are going to be.

Like I explained on day 1 (I think) I have these amazingly intricate plans to find out what relationships exist where. In regards to me that is. However, those plans are doomed from the start if the target of the plan thinks that I'll just laugh.

Nothing hurts more than an unintended rejection, as it leaves people wondering if it was intentional or whether it was just thoughtless or - in some cases - an attempt at humour. I have had personal experience of this where I was told by someone I had this stupidly huge crush on to "sign on the back as the front is for my friends only."

That sort of put down is, and was, humiliating. You can't argue against them in any reasonable way so you just have to take it and think about it. I spent several nights tossing and turning wondering about just what was meant by it. It all ended well in the end I suppose, but that's besides the point.

In the same way, that last sentence was really ambiguous.

As I have this intention in life to hide most of my feelings, succesfully hiding my feelings could be seen as ending well but also my feelings being discovered could be seen as breaking down barriers between me and other people, which could also be ending well. Unforntunately, I have this tendency to see the other side of the argument so whatever happened it could have been seen as bad.

In this case however, more good was done than damage, so y'know... the original statement in this case was entirely relevant and not made up on the spot at all. Honest!


As I finished yesterday talking about discrimination I feel this need to elaborate upon it.

We live in a world were it's too easy to be a criminal and practically impossible to catch anyone reliably. Discrimination, however, is taken entirely on people's word. If I was to call someone "black" tommorrow, then on their word only I would be classed as a racist. If I didn't call them black and they said I did then I would still be classed as racist. Why? Well, it's to do with something called equal rights.

Equal rights means that if you're a white, hetrosexual, middle class, educated male then you're chances of getting a job are practically zilch. You don't look good on the company record.

Equal rights means that females can get very aggressive about higher rankings in jobs to the point that by the time they've got there everyone thinks that they will over react to the slightest thing and will defend "equal" rights to their last breath.

Equal rights means that if I was in the line at the bus stop and a female of the same age turns up as I'm about to get on the bus I'm a male prig with no manners if I take the last seat on the bus, but the bus driver is sexist if he refuses to sell me a ticket because a young female wearing a short skirt is behind me.

Equal rights means that ethical minorities can push themselves into higher positions quicker as otherwise it's discrimination. Although, naturally, the same can apply the other way.


The thing that all these equal right activists haven't yet realised is that to be equal you have to have some common ground. I have common ground with most people.. but with people that are busy trying to strip away all my rights and equality with the rest of the world I have next to no common ground. I just don't trust them to negotiate efficiently on my behalf.

Without the trust that is necessary behind any agreement this sort of society can't function. It's similar to money. I pay someone in currency and they trust that the money is worth something and not totally worthless - as in it's not going to be devalued to the point where a loaf of bread costs a wheelbarrow full of 100 billion pound notes overnight.

So why do they bother?

Well prehaps one thing to remember is that most of these equal rights activists aren't white hetrosecual males that happen to be educated middle class people. So basically.. I'm unrepresented. Much like starting a new political party and then no one voting for it. You can be a member of it, but no one really cares as it has no power.

Without proper representation you can't have proper power. Although power may equate to money, meaning that money could be the proper representation for something, but that's getting off of the topic so I'll stop there.

So maybe the correct thing for me to do would be to go down to the local rights activists and sign up? And then I'd get discrimination from them!

I'd get the "you're too young" argument used against me. As ageism isn't really considered discrimination. Or if it is then I could have a lot of fun. I mean... you'd get clashes of laws.

What do you do if a 12 year old demands access to a 18 certificate film? You wouldn't be able to deny them entrance or sale on the pretext that they're too young. In fact, off hand, I can't think of any possible ways that they COULD prevent it from happening. And of course, the moment you start making exceptions into equal rights you hit the slight snag of unequal rights - which is of course what we have in modern day England anyway. It'd just be slightly more obvious.

There's one type of discrimination that everyone does without thinking about it. I do it, you do it and everyone else does it. It's called "sizeism" or at least, was called that by the person who did, to my knowledge, invent the word to describe discrimination due to size.

I have the feeling that it started as a joke at some point, but that the jokey side of it got lost amongst the stream of "small" jokes this person recieved from many people, myself included much to my shame.

You look at a person and you immediately make a judgement. If they tower over you too much you presume that they'll intimidate you and as a result you become more defensive. If they are too small you presume that they're more defensive and immediately become more aggressive, although in some people this is less noticeable than others.

Sizeism, however, is a two way thing; it's not just that people have to stop thinking of people as big and small but also that people need to act in terms of everyone is equal.

I'm a relatively tall person as compared to most of the people in the local area (for some reason I seem to live in a town where the average height is an inch or two lower than my own) and therefore I meet an awful lot of people who are immediately defensive and feel intimidated by me.

I slouch a fair bit to be honest. I can knock about an inch, maybe two, off of my proper height by slouching, and it immediately makes people relax more. It also means that people are more friendly towards me. They feel that someone that is slouching - or leaning against something, which also works - must be "cool" and therefore will be a lot more chatty with you and not so defensive.

Some of the best conversations I've ever had were with people who thought I was a lot smaller than I actually am because I wasn't standing up straight, or because a good three or four inches of my size was spent leaning on a handy small person or a doorframe. They also refer to "the tall people" as if I'm not one, which is always amusing.

Since I moved to my new school I've met a lot more tall people. However, they don't have these problems with intimidation. Maybe it's because I expect people to be intimidated and therefore subconsciously act in such a way as to justify that feeling so that they don't then get defensive because they think I'm actively trying to pacify them.

If someone doesn't have the mindset to expect something does it mean that that which is expected will not happen?

I notice that in nearly every experiement I've done in science lessons, whether it be GCSE or just SATs, we've been told what to expect and THEN we've done the experiment.

Maybe it's a conspiracy! Another one that is.

10th September: Part Two

Well.. after a few hours of Spore playing, I'm now at the walking around stage! First off your a little amoeba person. I choose to be a carnive.. so I wander around eating plankton and other little fish. However, I picked on a bigger fish and killed it... instant DNA.. lots of instant DNA. I guess that herbivore large fish with no defences are fodder. Then you evolve into the bigger fish.

And then into an animal. I'm now an 8 legged spider like creature that's omnivorous and wanders around trying to eat everything, as I haven't quite mastered the idea of making friends with other things yet. I suppose that I'm only a few hours behind modern day mankind in that effect.

I also got Need for Speed ProStreet off of my brother along with Spore. It's an alright game.. but I don't really like racing games. Now then.. where did I put Trackmania?



On another note, I was just thinking about the current political state of England and all democracies. It's a bit silly. In fact, change that to every government in the world. All of them have got the wrong idea. All restrictions are age based. So you get retarded eighteen year olds smashing into lorries at 120mph on the motorway and intelligent fourteen year olds stuck in school being bored.

A much better idea in terms of governance, and actually having a system that might work, would be to have an intelligence based community. So the retarded eighteen year olds have to learn stuff and the intelligent fourteen year old can go and get a job as a lawyer or something.
Driving a car would take so much intelligence, watching films currently rated at "18" would require you to understand that films are films and not documentaries.. and to be a member of any religous society might have the restriction that you don't view "The Flintstones" as a documentary but as what it should be - a little kids program. Not that I'm being stereotypical.. I enjoy "The Flintstones" as much as any other teenager. That is to say.. not that much.

There are, however, problems with this system. For a start.. how do you measure intelligence? In an IQ test? Well that means testing every single person in the country for an IQ test, reorganising the entirity of the current schooling and political systems and more besides. Changes like the ones I just suggested won't happen, can't happen, overnight.

Unless suddenly a large percentage of the world population die and I'm left to establish a new world order. Which is, at the very most, somewhere along the lines of 1x10 to the power -10000000000 in terms of the Probability Scale.

It's not quite impossible. I suppose I could be the only male left with a bunch of entirely obedient women that could create the human race. However, any disaster which leaves just me alive as the only male and an entire female bunch will probably get the female hormones up and running.. meaning that I'd survive about 10 minutes, be brutally murdered, and THEN one of them would say "Wait a second.. don't we need a man to carry on the human race?"

Then they could use those necromancers that invented Cyrogenics! The ones I mentioned ages ago.

You see, women have this problem. It's not that they don't think, it's just that they think about things and then ignore everything they just thought about and do something different and then say that that is what was agreed upon in the meeting. Men are much simpler. We just say we didn't think. And then everyone is happy... we don't have to lie! Well okay.. we do lie about not thinking. It's just that God gave us a brain and a penis but only enough blood to use one at a time. Such a pity.

On that note, I was reading a book the other day called "The Prince of the Blood" in which one of the characters says, "What's up with him? He's always said there's nothing stupider than a man with an erection!"

The "he" has a point. Men with erections tend to do stupid things. Throw themselves at girls. Attention seek. Write bad poetry. Attempt to sing and deafen everyone that is trying desperately not to listen but also failing epicly. However, are women any worse?
Admittedly, they can't get erections. But I'm sure they have an equivalent. I'm not sure what it is.. but I'm sure that whoever created this world and it's people, whether it be survival of the fittest, some all benevolent being, a demon who needed somewhere to practise or some other theory I've not yet heard, didn't make it unfair on the women by not letting them have their chance to act stupidly.

So then.. what would you expect from a women that was that excited? I'd sort of expect similar things.. a tendency to over dramatisise, a tendency to throw themselves at boys and a tendency to attempt to sing which would generally succeed, as untrained girls have better voices than untrained boys. Generally speaking.

And if I look around what do I see? I see them doing it all the time. Now what impressions could I gather from this? Let's see...

1) Boys get less excited
2) Girls are always excited
3) Boys are unfairly picked on for being the more active of the two genders.
4) If clothes did not exist there'd be alot more teenage pregnancies
5) Sex Education should be called Sex Training.


Taking on that last point for a moment. Sex Education. The wonderful thing where they show you B-rate porn and say that it's educational. Where they tell you about where they stick in needles, how they stick them in, how many tests you have to take and why boys suffer more than girls due to additional parts and less protection for those additional parts.

Now, I'm not exactly a fast mover in the game of life, but I do know that generally.. giving out the impression "Have fun, Have sex, but make sure it's safe" isn't exactly the best of things for a school to be doing.

Naturally, all my teachers deny that this is, in fact, what they are saying - at heart - and instead say that they are saying "If you MUST have sex, then make sure it's safe." It's not just me that agrees with me though. Which is unusual in itself. I mentioned this to a few other people, of both genders, and they agree... although some of them felt that this wasn't necessarily a BAD thing, but instead something to be taken advantage of and exploited so that the school could be closed down for inappropiateness.

Teenagers, as I'm sure I've said before, are so predictable it's depressing.

Okay, so lets say that all my teachers aren't lying to me to sound better. But that they are indeed teaching us this stuff so that instead of going out and making lots of babies we can go out and make 1/1000000 the number of babies (1/1000 chance of a condom failing multiplied by the 1/1000 chance of "The Pill" failling) and then dramatically lower the population of England because only 1/1000000 procreation acts ever have the chance of conceiving.. and even less of those act create something to be proud of, they are instead teaching us this so that we can learn why we shouldn't do it.

So we learn how to put on condoms. About emergency contraceptives. How to put on a condom.. in the dark. And of course, how to have sex.

Don't be stupid.. they're not training us at all. And of course, we have the roleplays. About homosexuality.

For some reason, boys are somewhat better at being mature about this than girls. Despite initial impressions, once boys have gotten over the idea of one of them having to be gay (or homosexual to give it it's proper name) in a roleplay they're fine with it. Girls will spend the vast majority of a 30 minute rehearsal time arguing over whose a lesbian.

Boys also give it a much better comedy value. They see the possible funny sides, and also show what they're reactions would actually be. Being in the unique position of knowing some actual homosexuals and watching them react to people around them who have no idea whatsoever it's amusing to the point of hillarious. One little kid, bless him, was using gay as an insult against someone who was. They didn't quite realise that they were doing nothing but speaking the truth.

For some reason, I know alot less lesbians. Probably because I don't talk to girls so much, and they don't trust boys so much. It can't be that they expect me to immediately set up a webcam in any place they go or anything. Of course not.

They just don't trust boys. That must be it.


Trust is a strange thing though. For example, I trust people online not to bother trying to find out who I am.. although I don't trust in that trust enough not to take some simple precautions. Like not mentioning too many names in anything I put up on the web about real life, and hardly ever having things like my real name pasted across the web.

In real life I trust some people less than I trust people online... although I will tell people in real life more.. because if they're talking to me then I presume that they know me somehow. Even if they don't, or are simply being polite and talking to me. Trust isn't a level of how much I tell someone, but rather WHAT I tell them.

For instance, I would tell someone online about my views on various political issues, but I wouldn't do that in real life because as a teenager no one pays much attention to me. I'm "too young" to know anything whatsoever about any political issues.

Online, people tend to care more about what is being said than about who is saying it. I think that if someone of my age said many of the things I said online to the same people I'm talking to online they simply would ignore those views until someone of a more mature age repeats them.

However, the same edge cuts two ways. Older people can have a tendency to believe that they are always right. I get on a bus and sit down on a seat. At the next stop I get dirty looks from an old women getting on the bus because, for instance, I'm playing games on my mobile. It's not a big thing, but it's enough to get her disapproval. Or, I'll get dirty looks because I'm a teenager.

The other one, of course, is that old people - or rather, relatively old people - of say 50+.. that were working with computers since they originated can have fixed ideas about what to expect. Things like EULA, PACT and various other laws just don't matter to them. They "don't apply" or they're "silly laws that no one cares about." And of course, any news stories proving your point are "one-offs" or "made-up." It's enough to make a sane man wonder if insanity might be easier.

Treating everyone equally is alot harder than it seems... which is why racism is such a big joke. But I'm getting tired. It's late, I've got school tommorrow and I guess I need sleep. As per usual. No sleep is enough sleep. Or something like that...

10th September

Okay, it's pretty much decided that if you've got this far then you're interested in what goes on in my head or that you have some strange reason for reading it. Which is, of course, something else I wonder about.

Something I mentioned yesterday was possible reasons why people might write diaries. As far as I can see, apart from the fact it's relaxing, fills up time and gives me something to do other than play computer games, there's not many reasons for me writing this. Of course, at some point, I'll probably unleash an edited version out onto the people that want to read it. However, that's just me talking.

Other people? Well... I don't know. Maybe it's because it calms them down. Or because it makes them feel as if all the bad stuff in life is for a purpose. Or something similar. I mean, today has been a fairly good day. Nothing much has really happened. Nothing bad, and not much good.. excepting a few things which I'll mention later. It's someone's law of making people work harder.

If they believe it's worthwhile, then the work becomes worthwhile and so fills up time easily. Instead of being the boring, mind-dulling, utterly pathetic thing it is in reality. It's a good theory. And I suppose it's another possibility. However, I actually think that the only purpose that anyone ever writes a diary is so that other people can read it. To let other people get inside their mind. It sounds like a more likely theory, and is probably one of the reasons why I'm writing this.

I mean.. I have this urge to let loose the full edition all the time, unedited, unrestricted and let loose to the world. It'll certainly liven up my life for a bit... before the ineveitable bullying comes in from having what I really think about the world and certain people or things in it revealed.

I hide behind a cloak of shadows and secrets, in the world of lies and deceit. I tell just enough truth to make it seem as if I am being honest whilst actually telling people next to nothing about me. It took people 18 months to wake up to some facts and other facts were never discovered... somewhat luckily in some cases.

Everyone has secrets. I just have more than most I think. I don't know though... I have this tendency to collect them around me. I'm like the counciler for anyone that has problems. Everyone leans on me. Until I think that everyone is leaning on me and I don't have anyone to lean ON. Which is always depressing.

On that note let me tell you a little more about some of the people I mentioned earlier. You know those C, G and D I mentioned? Well... it's time to actually talk about them instead of skirting around the actual issues.

Let's take G.

Her name is Grace. She probably knows more about me and my life than she wants to, and is one of the few people who I trust enough to talk openly with. Well... nearly openly with. There is.. as always.. a few things I don't mention to anyone.

It says a lot about her that she seems to always be there for you... you're in tears and crying and Grace turns up. You're over the moon and Grace turns up. You have a problem and Grace turns up. You don't have a problem and Grace turns up. It's not so obvious now that it's term time as she's one of those poor people that have to be up at six every morning and has a 12 hour school day (from waking up to getting home) and therefore is shattered. However, it's besides the point. You send an e-mail to her she'll reply.

She's like the counciller's counciller. Is very useful. You know I mentioned I had no one to lean on at one point? That was before I started talking to Grace more... then I just lent on her. She offers good advice as well.. for some bizzarre reason. It makes sense! Honest. I just got to try and work out how.


Then let's take D.

Her name is Dani. She knows more about me than C, but less about me than Grace, but is the only person (at this moment in time) who can get unlimited totally honest and simplistic answers. It's not a matter of me trusting her, it's a matter of me trusting her not to ask anything about anything that she doesn't want to know or that she thinks that I don't want to share. She has this knack of knowing what topics to avoid and what topics to talk about.

She is one beam of randomity in my life. Like... total randomity. A very memorable instance is that of when she went on a school residential trip that I also happened to be on. On the last night, when everyone was hyper, she ate skittles. And went a little scatter-brained. She lay on the floor looking at the world upside down. It WAS one of the highlights.

She also has a serious side. One way or another. Occasionally. The serious side is the more public one... the one that she uses in public, although she has been reported to carry on being random after a private thing becomes public. Which, I suppose, could be seen as insanity, or as sanity.

She also happens to be the subject of one of the secrets I kept for nearly two years. Then the world found out after a cunningly contrived plan - see above - and the secret isn't so secret.
As of this moment I have no idea whatsoever what I feel about her. She be random, but she is a very good friend. Occasionally a very irritating friend, but that fits in perfectly with the rest of them.

Finally, C.

She's a friendly person called Charlotte. She has a tendency to stress out sometimes, but knowing something about why she gets stressed it's perfectly understandable and more like a character highlight than a defect. And no, I'm not going to mention any more on that topic. I'm sworn to confidentiality, as per with everything that anyone tells me.

Her mum happens to be one of the teachers at my current school. I'd feel sorry for her mum but I'm not in those particular classes. Although some of the people in that class ARE fairly awful. Althouhg I didn't say that. Or type that. Or publicise it.

She gets stressed at me fairly repetitively... which is also understandable. I'm not exactly the easiest of people to get on with. But when she's not trying to kill me, or murder me, or get Jack to murder me, or encouraging violence in other form, she's a friend. Possibly. Maybe. I wouldn't dare to say anything else?



So now you know a few of the people in my life. Aren't you all feeling so great?



Let's look at Homework. That dreaded thing. That I hate.

It's not that I can't do it... It's just that I can't be BOTHERED to do it. Unforntunately, at GCSE level, that isn't good enough. It's "coursework" or something. And as everyone keeps on reminding me.. coursework accounts for anywhere between 0-100% of the final grade, depending on just what is going on. And which lesson.

Take my Maths homework as of last week as a matter of fact.

I had to add up a few numbers and divide them by the number of numbers I'd just added up. Finding out the mean. It was a calculator question. I used my brain.. otherwise I get bored and go and do something more interesting. Sew a few things together... commit suicide... watch paint dry. That sort of thing.

Or my science homework for this week...

Fill in the missing words! Yeah! Year 10 homework.. so hard. It's a bit like ECS and ECI (Educational Cut and Stick, Educational Colouring In) which although is suitable for the little primary school kids just isn't something that I would even consider for a top set GCSE class. But I can't do anything about it, so I'll just siit through it I suppose.


Well I just got Spore off of my brother.

Spore is this fun game. You start off as an amoeba and you evolve! I'll comment more later.

9th September

Day two of my infernal ramblings. I started this entire thing as a result of being bored at 10 o'clock one evening and having nothing to do and not feeling particulary tired. However, it IS really relaxing and it also seems to quiet down some of my more worrisome fears. Maybe this is why people write a diary.

I was talking about diaries yesterday, to a fairly good, albeit very worrying, friend of mine. I wondered if she (yes... big wow.. I have female friends. It's called friendship, nothing special. Well, excepting in a few people where my feelings for them run in entirely different directions, but I'm getting off of the point) kept a diary. No.. I'm not a pervert that wants to read into peoples head.

Unlike you who obviously want to get into mine. Strange people.

However, I only wondered if she had one for the simple reason that I wanted to know if she thought it was a good idea for me to start one of my own.

Believe it or not... this is what happened. Yes, this. The thing that you're reading. My version of a diary!

Back on topic - she told me it was a good idea. But that she didn't know what I meant (I HAD said "computerized diary" I suppose.) About 10 minutes later, and several explanations of simplified and even simpler simplified words she fianlly got the idea. And then said it was a bad idea, and she didn't keep a diary because she couldn't be arsed. Charming! She needs to wash out her mouth. I'd suggest it but she'd probably murder me, call round for me or set her boyfriend (who also happens to be a friend of mine) on me. Although that WOULD be quite amusing I suppose.

Her boyfriend spends most his time on his comptuer playing games. They're made for each other I suppose. She's got the time and patience to waste away after someone playing games all the time and he's got the money to spend on her. Perfect!


On that same sort of vague topic.. I'll ramble about Gaming for a bit. Yes, that's got a capital letter on it on purpose. I'm not going insane and being unable to write simple words without accidentally hitting the shift key. You see, Gaming isn't just your everyday gaming. It's more important. It's a way of life. I found a gamer's creed on the internet the other day. "Destructoid's 10 Golden Rules of Gaming" they're called. They aren't serious, but they do capture the image of the stereotypical gamer fairly well.

For example;

Rule 1 reads: Gaming is more than a hobby. It is your entire life.
Which is basically true, with the exception of the other neccessities in life... like girls that are willing to wait to get attention with mobiles or rining phones... and parents that have food available to you.

Rule 7 or 8 (I can't remember which reads: The only purpose of a microphone is to play music down it. Especially everything by Rick Astley. All gamers love Rick Astley. You'll get an uber reputation if you play his music.
It DOES neglect to mention that Rick Astley is one of the few universally hated people for the Rick Rolls of the last twenty years and that most of his music will immediately get you a BAD reputation. It is a reputation of some sort, but it's a bit like having a reputation for sleeping around. One that some people want to avoid (girls) and that some people want to have (boys) and that all sensible people (practically no one) ignore.

Other Rules include how to insult people, what tactics NOT to use and so on. Basically it's a joke amongst gamers. Some people, for some bizzarre reason, take it seriously. I can't imagine why. It's not like all gamer's automatically follow them without realising it and that they are actually fairly accurate representations of what goes on. Of course it can't be! What made you think that?

Jokes aside, gaming is a serious buisness. I've been known to literally run home to get on a game before such and such a time so as to get 4 hours playing time in after school. Yes, it's sad... BUT some games are worth it. Take, for instance, the days when I was sadly addicted to Runescape. That online game that most people wouldn't touch with a very long stick and that everyone plays. That one.

I would run home to get home before four o'clock to get the necessary 5 hours training till half nine in (that's 9:30 for those that can't understand good English...) whilst still not bolting down my tea. Dinner. Evening Meal. In those 5 hours I would typically spend 4 hours of that training and about 1 hour running around in the "Wilderness" player killing (or pking as it is called amongst those that actually play the game.)

Player Killing was the only reason I actually played the game. Unlike other games where it's all skill, or other games where it's all luck, Player Killing strikes a balance between long-term skill, short-term skill, luck and how fast you can run away from clans who have more people on their side. For instance, I had to consider things like how people react when I pull out the dread 2H (a slower hitting weapon that needs 2 hands but that hits harder) or when I turned on my prayer so that they couldn't hurt me.

Generally speaking, they didn't like it. They'd run off. Occasionally they'd show a brain and do something different, but it was unlikely that I'd ever get anything from doing it. Or at least, enough to make a profit. I could just about break even normally.

For example, I'd kill some guy and get a nice suit of armour worth.. say... 300,000 gold pieces. I'd run back and sell it, and on the next trip I'd die, losing MY armour worth 300,000 and having to replace it with what I just made from selling the armour I got from the last trip. It's the rules of logic.. it can't be made profitable for everyone. But if you PK long enough, getting enough breaking evens you can nudge into the realms of money making with a few lucky kills.. as in - the other person's computer is so awful that they lag and therefore just had to sit watching you slaughter their virtual selfs whilst being unable to do anything about it.

So you ask, if I hardly ever made money, why did I actually bother withthe whole thing?

The answer is quite simple. It was fun. Addictive, simplistic fun. I didn't have to worry about how I felt about this girl and that girl and the other girl and no one cares about how old you are or how tall you are, or indeed - very little about anything but how you act towards other players.

It means that I can drop most of the inhibitions I put upon myself and just act myself.. something I find myself sadly unable to do in the real world. It's depressing. That is.. it's depressing to think of it like that. It's much better to think that I trust the online world to totally not care about myself and therefore act better. Although that COULD be seen badly I suppose. Lose lose situation for me in this scenario, so I'll move swiftly on.

But I hear some people shouting at me. "What about all those strategy games you play? Aren't they all skill based?" The answer, believe it or not, is yes. But there I have skill. I can play strategy games. Until 3 in the morning if necessary, although I DO like my sleep. And, of course, I like strategy games... I don't mind practising and practising until I can play at a semi-decent level where there's more than enough things to distract me and to make me get involved in the game unlike in some games where I basically just have to sit back and watch my digital world get on with playing itself.

Games like that suck majorly I'm afraid. Dawn of War is a good game. Buy it if you don't have it, if you do have it get expansion packs. If you have all the expansion packs already you're a sad sad person. Welcome to the world of gaming.

I'm starting to sound like a reviewer aren't I? Ah well.. I suppose my english lessons must be making an impression on me or something.

Thinking about school always depresses me though. And bores me.

Take today as a matter of fact.

The day started with an assembly. It's a Teusday.. so I get 20 minutes of sitting on little chairs that look comfortable until you've sat on them for 30 seconds or so at which point you are painfully aware that they hurt and that they aren't comfortable. Today we had the student's role in the school. We are all equal members of the school, and we are equal to the teachers.

I would rush to differ the point but I don't like showing up principals in front of entire schools, or indeed, at all. They CAN chuck me out if they want and I don't want to get off to a bad start and a quick ending. Afterall, there's a fairly fundamental difference between teachers and students. Teachers get paid. Students don't. It's one of these things that gets corrected at 16. However... I do have to also point out a few things. I don't get paid even at 16. Is that fair?

My parents earn slightly too much... AND the thing doesn't take into account how many kids parents have. Unfair isn't it? I mean... my brother's ex-girlfriend got this bribe (it's called EMA) and she used to get holidays to America and all over the place. Because she was an only child. Enough said? I'm one of four. I'm one of the unlucky people that has an older and a younger sister and a brother, all as original and creative as me, with the possible exception of the younger sister and the brother who both are considered to be the "normal ones" in society.

Another fundamental difference is the fact that teacher's work at school. Student's are simply tested on and social experiments are carried out. Generally those social experiments are held behind closed doors and do not include teachers. I am, of course, talking about bullies.

Every school has them somewhere. The "hard" ones. The "rebels". The "victims". You know the ones. The ones that take out their anger and fustration and so on on the nearest human being instead of doing the sensible thing and stop feeling jealous of everyone around them or simply learn how to not show off to their friends.

It should probably be made clear at this point that I don't advocate bullying. It's one of those things I'll let pass... until a certain point at which I'll crack and show the strain of everything else life is putting on me.

So, anyway, I met some of them today. They weren't too bad to the "new boy" last week. This week they're unbearable. As per usual, they find some sort of flaw in the physical appearance of the target - in my case my nose... as per usual - and take the mick out of it. In my case trying to grab it. Personally, I find it irritating. Having someone grab at my face is something which will always get a response.

I ended up, today, storming out and going and punching a few walls. This calms me down, taking out my aggression on something which isn't going to move or get angry at me or try and beat me up. On the downside, my wrist is now aching and is complaining that I strained it or something. I can't bend it without hurting it.

Tommorrow, I'm off to find a teacher. If I can. Like I said, bullies can pick on people, or even me, up to a point. After that I'll choose a different battleground where I can win. They choose to get physical it's unlikely that I'm able to beat them there. I'll go to intellectual, or simply to "Who the teachers like more" and thrash their asses. Hopefully. Of course, the snitching route generally makes it worse, but to be honest, by this point I'm beyond caring. It's gone too far in two days. And it's spreading.

I'm guessing the teachers will have a word with the students.. who will then continue. So I'll complain again and again, moving up the various ranks of school infrastructure.

For those that can't follow that last bit let me explain.


Inside of a school there are varying levels of responsibility... a fellow student would see me as a peer. They can have practically no effect on other students as very few students are universally respected enough to get that sort of response. Especially when they're trying to stop people from bullying other people.

The next stage is an adult of some kind or form. Not a member of staff, just an adult. Parents, adult friends. Most of them have some view, and will help you take it to the next level or so on.

Then you go and find a teacher. That's a good stage. Teacher's generally only have influence around where it is though... so a German teacher won't interfere in something that happened in anything but German, and probably would refer you up a stage.. to your Form Tutor. Form Tutors - or whatever you want to call them - have a legal responsibility to prevent discrimination and harrassment. It's part of their job description - as far as I know. However, most of them don't care diddly squat and so will limit it to having a quick word with the students in question.

After the form tutor has tried.. and generally failed... they suggest you hang around the form room all the time.. which never really appealed to me. Not much to do there. So you have to complain to them again, and they'll suggest the next thing.

Then you use the parents! That second stage from ages ago... You tell them that you spoke to teachers and to the form tutors and that they're being less than helpful.. or helpful in ways which only give a solution instead of curing the problem. They ring up school... yay!

At my current school they'll get reffered to the form tutor.. who now realises that you're viewing this as a serious problem. The bullies will get called in again, and prehaps another quiet word will be had. However, most of the time this isn't enough to stop them.

So you go and find a member of senior management. And hand in a letter of complaint. An official letter of complaint. About the level of response and the level of effect those responses has had to cure the problem that you have been having with other members of the college community (or school community.) Naturally, you have to have worked up to this stage. Bothering Principals+Vice Principals over something that hasn't been mentioned to lower levels of responsibility doesn't go down too well. And like I said earlier they can chuck you out if they so want... not a good idea to get on their bad sides.

So now you've involved some of the highest response levels possible to you as a student. Indeed, the last few stages should only be done with parental agreement else you look like your over-reacting.. which is always possible. Parents can take it up to governers or further still, but for a simple matter of playground bullying there's not much point.

Something more serious... say threats... or an entire gang bullying entire hordes of targets... could possibly be taken further. But there's not much point. Repeated complaints to the principal will get the point across fine.


So now you know how to make a proper complaint about something let's give you something else to complain about!

ICT GCSE.... One of those compulsory subjects that you drop as soon as possible. Reading from the sheet I have to do... word for word:

"AOW1 File Management

1 Create two subfolders inside of a main folder
2 Show Files in an appropiate place inside of a subfolder
3 Show that you can delete move copy files
3. Show that you can delte move copy folders...

etc."

The list goes on for two pages. There's about 60-70 bulletpoints. As someone I know put it "Well here's the next couple of hours work. What we doing after that?"

The answer, believe it or not, is that the ticklist was an entire years work. A year of sitting around and doing nothing. Or doing very little. And I'll probably get more detentions in this than in anything else.

Joking aside, my LITTLE sister (the 9 year old that is also refferred to as "the pet" or "the chaperone" depending on what she is doing at the time) could do this. And pass with better marks than the majority of my class. I mean.. they really have no clue. We're on windows XP... one of the most sold Operating Systems in the WORLD (Of course, I'm basing this on no evidence whatsoever, so I could be wrong).. and no one knows how to use it. The TEACHER doesn't know how to use it.

How can you teach a subject which you know nothing about? I mean.. seriously... I could take an attentive class through about 2 units in the time it took her to take us through how to take a screenshot. I could take one person through the entirity of this years work in about 2 or 3 hours. I will, however, have to prove this before I go any further.

Some for the time being let's take yesterday's theme of the girls favourite game a little further.

The wedding is next wednesday, I've got to organise a pageboy, they've got an organist, vicar and choir. Still no way I'm turning up for it though. The one I'm getting married to doesn't interest me in the slightest. Unless they've changed their mind about which one I'm getting married to. In which case I'd be slightly more interested, but not to the point of getting married or anything else they have planned.

I'm digging myself a hole here aren't I?

So let's change topic!


I'm currently listening to that wonderful piece of music called the Crucifixion. For those without the benefit of an education in church music, choral music or any music but that which is popular at the moment amongst people of my age, it's a choral work (that means a choir sings lots of smaller parts of it) that lasts about an hour... depending on how fast you sing/play it. Enthusiastic Organists cut off about 20 minutes of that time.

This particular choral work is about the story of the Christian Easter. Jesus goes to Gethsemane, sees suffering, gets caught, taken before the Prariahs, gets charged with sedition, sentenced to death, crucified, killed and then the choral work ends. No ressurrection in this one!

My favourite bit has to be the 17th part... it's called "Appeal of the Crucified." It's supposed to be what should have been said to the people watching him die on the cross. It asks them "Is it nothing to you?"

I think that question is all the more relevant about the suffering we see in the world today. Is it really nothing to you? Are you really some heartless creul miser that wants to see suffering or will you stand up for what you think is right and not strike out against those that are trying to do just that?

However, I can easily beat this piece of music for the WOW factor. Although this piece of music can be touching, and make you think a little, Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite no.1 is much much better. For those that don't want to listen to classical music, the Peer Gynt Suite has been transcribed for electrical guitar and bass guitar and a singer and a few other random instruments that sort of fixed in to make it appeal to all of you.

I was horrified when I discovered, but I suppose that playing it badly and you knowing it might be better than you not knowing about it at all. It's like chicken and egg, only not so profound and not quite so puzzling or thoughtful.

Hall of the Mountain King. Stick it into youtube, or google. You might get a nice version maybe not. It IS a very good piece, when played properly. All the electrical stuff loses it, but you could use the electrical stuff as a warm up to the proper version. YEAH! That's a good idea. Go and do that.

And get a life.

If you've read this far you really must have nothing better to do with your time.

8th September 2008: Day One

Hello. Good Morning. If you're reading this it means I've publishised it somewhere. Or that you're a dirty pervert. Or prehaps both. Does it really matter at this moment in time? After all, your life, and my life, are certainly almost insignificant on a bigger scale. Take for example, on a relatively small scale, human kind.

As of the last count I saw there's about 6.6 billion people living on this planet. That's a very big number... about 6,600,000,000 to be precise. So that means that you are one six-billionth of all human life on earth. Relatively nothing. To compare it to say.. money.. it's like having a penny out of 66 million pounds (that's 1 cent to 66 million dollars to the americans.. although that's only worth half as much, much like the Americans themselves I suppose... although it's open to debate naturally). In other words - nothing.

But lets take something a little bigger. Let's take your life, your soul - after all, we're talking about YOU here - and compare it to something a little wider. Maybe... all lifeforms on earth? Including bacteria, viruses, aliens, the wierd random person who barely counts as human and the other assorted things. Hazarding a guess, I'd say that there's prehaps 10-20 trillion trillion life forms. You know that amount of money I mentioned earlier? Well now, humankind - as a race - is worth about a penny. I don't know exactly, it's not like I can be bothered to work it out all the time. Just because I CAN do it doesn't mean I have to.

However, is life really how your worth is measured? Surely it's not how much life you have, but how you have that life. Do you spend it all at home, sitting on a computer? Or do you not have a life and spend it all going round your mates, or simply jumping up and down on the spot and being stressed or other pointless activities. Analogous to paint drying, only not quite so interesting. In which case, your life isn't measured in money, or any other form but by your actions.. what you DO.

So, say I have two people. Both of them are average.

One of them is a lazy sod though. They spend their time watching Hollyoaks, perving on the Big Brother toilet block and watching other assorted, fairly rubbish, TV reality shows. In other words - a typical teenager. They kill a few people in doing this... maybe they don't realise it, but for all they know the TV could have been made in China, using illegal child workers in awful conditions where the death toll is in the hundreds. It's not like China will notice if a few hundred of it's billions disappear. So, without realising it, they're killing people. And then, they eat stuff, they use electricity, they cook food, they only recycle some of their waste. All of these things can have negative effects on the world.

And on the other hand, you've got the other average person. They would try to do the same as the first person but for one small problem.. the lack the basic necessities. Due to the peculiarties of the world and the fact that life hates us all, they lack a games console of any description, from a Wii to a PC to a XBOX to some sort of little handheld thingy... a DS or a Gameboy. Both of which are equally good, but some things are more equal than others! Of course, due to the fact they don't have anything along these lines they spend their life doing not very much. Maybe they read books, play chess, grow trees. Well, maybe not grow trees. Doesn't really fit in with the rest of it. Now these books, these chess sets. They were made in China too. They also caused death in the hundreds.

So are both people equally bad? The first person is having fun wheras the second person probably is some sort of loner with no friends and a better social life... when they actually get a friend to talk to. So the answer is yes? They're both heartless people with nothing better to do than kill innocent Chinese people! Or is the anwer no? Is one of them better than the other or is the other worse than the original? I don't know, you decide.

Now I've depressed us all, let's move onto something else.

That ridiculous game called "She fancies you." I'm sure that boys have all been the target of this at some point in their life, and that girls all participate willingly in this. The thing is, I can't really call it bullying. It's not. It's funny! Amusing! Also worrying, but that's different thing. Okay, let me tell you a brief story.

On one Monday, I was sitting quite harmlessly watching some people I knew play cards. They weren't playing anything interesting, just some rubbishy game they'd stolen off of Fable 2 - which says alot for their mental creativity and how they will spend the rest of their life. And then I got this girl tapping me on the shoulder. Fairly irritated - for although the game was mind boggling boring, it also gave me something to do - I turned round and immediately was hit by a "SHE FANCIES YOU!!!" I smiled slightly and turned round. However, before I was half turned round I was tapped on the shoulder again. Expecting the same girl I turned round again. It wasn't the same one! It was the one that had just been told that apparently she fancied me. And her response was "I don't fancy you. SHE does!" pointing at the original perpetuor of the game. In the spirit of the game, the cries on both sides of the thing got bigger and bigger until it turns out I'm getting married next wednesday to two people, having two honeymoons at opposite sides of the world and more besides.

They haven't quite realised that I'm not planning to turn up to any of this yet. I'm sure they'll realise at SOME point.


Now to get back on topic. You've heard the story. Now then, if I had any interest whatsoever in either girl - which, as far as this thing goes, I don't. My actual feelings will be in a different part of this, and will probably involve so many negatives you all get a headache reading it. Losers - I'd be slightly confused. Here I am, two girls bombarding me with "she fancies you" and other ridiculous statements. Now then, hypothetically, I could fancy one of them. But the point is that I would now have even less confidence than I normally would anyway whilst talking around girls - especially those I do admire, fancy, fall in love with or chase after.

So, naturally, if one of the girls was telling the truth and it so turned out that I did fancy the one who was lying it'd be fine. Or would it? Firstly, I'd have the problem of getting a straight answer out of one of them. As I'm sure some people that know me can testify I don't do anything in small measures. If I'm on the warpath to find out who does or doesn't fancy me I'll turn up half a dozen other things whilst I'm doing it.

Prehaps the remarkable thing about me going out with someone for a while is that it only took me 18 months to get up the nerve and courage and confidence to get round to asking them out.

Back on topic - so I'll organise some sort of quick quiz about who fancies who and expect people to be as honest as I am. Unforntunately, that takes courage and nerve. Something I'm currently lacking in (this IS hypothetical remember). So naturally a bigger plan is needed. So, in the instance of the first person I ever asked out, I offered a few girls the chance to get a few questions answered totally honestly, in the simplest way possible.

Now the wonderful thing about girls is, is that they are all totally predictable. Given the opportunity to get some honest answers they will ask the following:

How do you fancy
How long have you fancied them
Would you go out with them



And more along those lines. Now the other great thing about this is that girls immediately feel that they have to be honest in return (with the exception of a few people who lie, trick, decieve and basically ruin all good plans. Not looking at anyone in particular. Yet.) So here I am, spilling out my heart, and then.. BAM! I get the chance to get a few questions answered honestly from them. Naturally, I ask the predictable ones:

Do they fancy me
How long have they fancied me (if they do)
Who do you fancy

Teenagers are so predictable it's dissappointing really.

Now I know the truth. However, I'm still not happy. For all I know, I could be being led on to do something stupid. It wouldn't be the first time, and it wouldn't certainly be the last time.

Although I strive for never looking stupid of course. No one likes to be made a fool.

So now, armed with ammo, I go onto the next phase. I go and find the person that I fancy -in the hypothetical situation, one of these two girls. And I offer them the chance to get some questions answered honestly. It's a win win situation. I don't have to worry about getting round to my likes/dislikes in conversation, and even if they avoid the topic it's a surefire sign that they don't want to know the answer, therefore love me. Right?

Or is that just confidence speaking?

It's besides the point. I get a straight answer out of them. If the answer is yes, then generally the next question is "Will you go out with me" with hopes for the answer to remain the same. If the answer is no... I don't know. I hadn't really thought about that. I don't get that far in my planing. Must be the confidence speaking.


The main problem I see with all of this, of course, is confidentiallity. For the first time, let me mention a few people. I'll call them G, D and C.

I fancied D. G and C knew who D was, and C suspected that I fancied D. However, C wasn't sure so kept her mouth shut. Aren't girls wonderful things? I cooked up the above plan in about 3 weeks flat and offered G the chance to get a few questions answered honestly. G immediately asks the questions I listed above (I got that right BEFORE the initial questioning as well.. depressive) and I answer honestly.

G discovers I fancy D, and immediately asks if D can be told. My answer is no, D will find out herself. So, au natural, G invites D round to her house, and then strikes up a conversation about who I fancy over MSN. BOOM BANG CRASH! D finds out. G hasn't yet told me that D is listening/reading in on this conversation remember.

D goes home, talks to me on MSN. Gets the questions, asks, gets same answers. And shuts up for 10 minutes. That sort of thing is always scary you know. Especially if you don't know what the hell is happening on the other side of the line. Or conversation in this case. It turns out that her MSN crashed. I panicked for nothing. Fairly typical of me.

So anyway, D admits that she had slight crush on me, yippee! Then she admits that G told her anyway. I get a little pissed of at this point. I'm sure you can understand why. I did all this complex planning and then the entire plan is basically superfluous because one person couldn't keep their mouth shut. However, on the plus side, D is now going out with me. That's good isn't it?

G comes online, and refuses to apologise. She said "If it wasn't for me, D would have overreacted and gone beserk." It was understandable I suppose. Doesn't mean that I like what I thought was a private conversation beamed out to the wider world though. I don't go around spreading other peoples secrets - and I could if I wanted to - after they tell me them, so I don't see why mine should be spread either.

I didn't do anything TOO nasty. I just shut up on her until she apologised. It only took her 3 days I suppose. Not TOO long. So game over? Happy Ending?

On comes C, within 20 minutes the world knows.. as in - everyone - and I get pelted with MSN messages from more people than I thought I actually had on my list. Everyone unblocked me or something. Who knows? Meh, it doesn't matter.

The point is that confidentiality is important when talking about any secrets. Apart form your own. That's probably why I'm writing this. A way for me to talk about what's bothering me and probably what's going on inside my head. If you can follow this, and have read this far, congratulations. And I'm worried by your perserverance. Perverts.




The next topic I want to talk about is belief. Not just everyday belief in say.. gods, football, dying, afterlife, underlife, blowing things to pieces but rather belief in yourself. That whatever you want to do you can do. Within reason. Or is it?

The problem I have with most poeple and their attitude towards life is that they think that some things are impossible. The most common example is flying.

I stole this unashamedly from HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy. I apologise for the plagarism, but I hope that they realise that copying is the sincerest form of compliment and that it happens to be one of my favourite books.

"There is an art, or rather, a knack to flying.
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Pick a nice day and try it.
The first part is easy.
All it requires is simply the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight and not to mind that it's going to hurt.
That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground.
Most people fail to miss the ground, and if they are really trying properly, the likelihood is that they will fail to miss it fairly hard.
Clearly, it is the second part - the missing - which presents the difficulties.
One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally.
It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't. You have to have your attention suddenly distracted by something else when you're halfway there, so that you are no longer thinking about falling, or about the ground, or about how much it's going to hurt if you fail to miss it."

It then goes on to suggest that women in not much clothing, or no clothing, jump out at boys, wheras girls could be distracted by a concourse on philosophy. Or - my own personal thoughts on the matter on what might work- the chance to have a credit card which is automatically billed to the husband/boyfriends bank account with unlimited credit. That sort of thing.

So far, in experimentation, I've failed. Spectaculary. I presume this is because I have an amazing lack of scantily clad women and an also amazing capacity to fail to miss the ground. There must be a knack to it. Anyone else up for an attempt? If we chuck you off of a 100 storey building you'll have plenty of time to learn, and about 10 miliseconds of pain whilst the brain passes through the jelly of the body and splats against the pavement.

Or no pain whatsoever as the shock waves of the impact would rush through your body faster than the nervous impulses, meaning that you won't feel a thing. There you go! Not even pain to put you off of the idea.

The song "He jumped without a parachute from 40,000 feet" comes to mind, although I doubt that many people will actually know the song.


Back to belief - I think that nothing is impossible. With the logical exception of doing nothing, which leads me to think that all dictionaries are wrong and nothing doesn't actually mean nothing but something very close to nothing meaning it does mean nothing and therefore doesn't.

If that makes sense to you well done! If not, don't worry. You can go and sit down for a while and put it out your mind. Read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You'll enjoy it. It's got practically no sex in it, apart from pages 1-590 in my 590 page edition.

If you believed, strongly, firmly, without contradictions or doubts, that you would live forever, you would live forever. However, because - subconsciously - you are aware that living forever is a physical "impossiblity" you die. Simple enough. However - you COULD prolong your death. It's called cryogenics. Its basically murder, but with every intention of bringing you back.

I heard that it was invented by a bunch of level 70 necromancers that escaped from World of Warcraft.

Which leads me onto life and death. Life support technology - or Death Support Technology, as it has been dubbed elsewhere - is becoming increasingly popular. Afterall, which selfish bugger doesn't want to cling to life for another few days?

Personally, I think that by the time I'm 70 or 80 and about to die I think I'll want to die. Obviously, if I don't think I'm ready to die.. say I'm 30... I'll be the selfish bugger. I want to live my life thank you very much! Suicide never really appealed to me though. Maybe I'll go down the euthanasia route.

Y'know - I saw some total idiot mention that as "Youth in Asia." I'm not sure whether he was being racist by saying that "Youths in Asia" like to assist suicide or whether he just can't tell the difference between what are basically hired assassins who you hire to kill yourself and a charity which tries to SAVE people. There is a difference!

For those that don't know, euthanasia means you stop hanging onto life and let yourself go. Like suicide but with help. The relatives - such as parents or children - generally have to agree to it as well.. From a cynical point of view I'm guessing how rich you are plays an important part in how soon they sign on the dotted line and cut off your death prolongment machine.

Joking aside.. if you're some poor person that gets benefits I'm guessing they'll wait until just after you get one batch so as to get the most money. If you're Creosete (that's the greek guy who was really rich) or from Magrothea I doubt that they'll wait. They'll be like "Yes, Granny would have wanted to go without pain" and in secret "Okay then.. how long till we can get the new Ferrari?"

Heartless! The lot of them! I bet that the life support stuff is Chinese as well!

However, China may not actually use child labour, and it's been a few months since I last saw anything come out of China, and to be honest most of the illegal labour stuff about the Chinese people happens in Britain. Is it a carefully constructed propoganda assault?