—ish. Everything has a price if human beings are involved in its production or distribution. (‘Free’ is only when the costs are transferred to some other bugger.)


are on the game (blogging) for Fame, and good luck to them.

Some are in the business to ‘help’ their fellow man (oops, person. Human. Wotever) with unsolicited advice (and good luck to them too)(I think …).

Others are in on a tit-for-tat basis—“You follow me and I’ll follow you” and/or “gimme a ‘Like’ and I’ll do the same for you” … which really is a bit pathetic; but often folks are pressing all the buttons in the hope of pushing a business, scoring a sale, or even clinching a client. It takes all sorts.

So … moi?


taking full advantage of being able to say almost anything I like about almost anything I dislike. This, as Billy Connolley used to say, is “Brilliant!”

So be advised, with me what you see—


—is what you get.

I’m a Spouter, not a trader, dealer, or seller. Following me doesn’t mean that I’ll follow you. I follow only where I sense a personal profit: educational, rational, entertainmental … amusing, inspiring … reinforcing … exemplary … paradigmatic … or a horrible Object Lesson I can throw at other people.


optimists who visit my blog just once, and without comment (or even a ‘Like’~!) sign up to ‘Follow’ … nice, and I offer due gratitude, but please—I’d really rather that you didn’t.




—’cos beyond here be monsters.

I have no idea how many ‘Followers’ I have and honestly I really truly don’t give a damn. But:




—and when I lack the wherewithal with which to debate I’ll cheerily admit as such and call for help—



(Oh no … just when I thought it was safe to—

“Yes, Mr Satan, Sir?” (SFX: insert ingratiating tail wags here please)

“I wouldn’t bother, Dog. Many won’t understand—”

“Pearls before swine, Sir?”

“Ouch. Don’t come the raw prawn with ME dog … but yes.”

“Noted, Sir. How’d your dinner with the Pope go?”

“How did you … not bad, but the bottles weren’t from his top shelf.”

“Win a few, Sir …”

Funny … it’s not only wars that make for strange bedfellows. Religions (take your pick, there’s many thousands) do too …






on another’s blog (slightly amended):


The first para (red) is the issue; I’m quoting on—

“AUGUST 29, 2018 @ 9:29 PM
I think the biggest issue with “patriarchy” is “marriage”…… understandable. A man who commits “infidelity” is a -law breaker-“

Two noticeable aspects of Abrahamics is the sly establishing of full control.
Control of everything; but cut straight to the nitty-gritty with many (most?) blokes by controlling the expression/relief of hormones.
Control their sex life.
Literally, grab ’em by the balls and they are putty in your hands (to mix a few metaphors …).

And their other main appetite—you’ll note the Dietary Laws as well as ‘Chastity laws’.

In one brilliant pair of strokes the priest controls the man—and in those societies that meant the priest controls everyone (after all, God decreed the Man as Head of the Household, no?).

That, and that alone is why Abrahamic ‘law’ is so tough on marriage (but only when such is properly sanctioned by a properly ordained proper Representative of God, in God’s own House)*.

And of course, right from the very earliest any ‘fruit of the union’ must be officially entered into God’s recording systems … so we have baptisms and Christenings etc etc.
They had it pretty well covered but these days excommunication doesn’t mean what it once did (and the ‘Holy Stake’ has been temporarily shelved until it can be resurrected). Brrrr …

* The “God house” bit has been relaxed in recent years, and we also have civil marriages and such. The Church fought a long rearguard action there, too.

—which comment I’m now tossing into the arena … in case it needs correcting or amendment?

Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 12.46.26







Screen Shot 2018-03-14 at 18.32.17—but not for the Abrahamics, no?

Funny … I’d never heard of the ‘Young Life’ religious franchise until yesterday. Now I have to revisit a few definitions (quite a few!) so I shall keep this post brief.

In November 2007, Jeff McSwain, the Area Director of Durham and Chapel Hill, along with others, was fired after taking issue with the organization’s “sin talks.” McSwain’s theology emphasizes that “God has a covenant, marriage-like relationship with the world he has created, not a contract relationship that demands obedience prior to acceptance [as in that of Young Life].”[11]Tony Jones describes Young Life’s Statement of “non-negotiables” as telling staffers that “they must not introduce the concept of Jesus and his grace until the students have been sufficiently convinced of their own depravity and been allowed to stew in that depravity”.[12] Eight members of Young Life’s teaching staff based in Durham, North Carolinaresigned their positions after these “non-negotiables” were announced.[13]


And a deeply sympathetic “Thank you!” to Zoe for alerting me to yet another religious scam.

But before I leave—what do we especially notice about religious scams?

Satan-PNG-Transparent-Image copy

      “They’re mine!”                                            “Think again, Horn-head … MINE!”





“Stories in your Community”

I found this—

Screen Shot 2018-08-29 at 17.41.01.png

—is it a joke?

I suspect not … perhaps someone really is terribly worried.

Aaah, but what about? That he/she had trespassing vandals on their property, or (Eeek~!) that they may now be in line for a visit from the Devil in person—


“Tell ’em not to fret, Argie! I’m too busy with the Abrahamics right now~!

—a bit grumpy ‘cos someone has taken His name in vain. So in an effort to answer these questions of Earth-shattering importance I did some research. Not much, there’s just millions of it out there (and I don’t fear ol’ Nick in the least—He and I reached an understanding decades ago. I leave Him alone and vice versa)(it seems to work).


Good dog. Nice doggie …

But numerology, is it valid or just another meaningless mundane moronic superstition? Moronic or not, it attracts some heavy duty academics—

“Six is legitimate when it leads to seven; it represents man on the first evening of his existence entering into the celebration of God’s creative power. The glory of the creature is right if it leads to the glory of God. Six hundred sixty-six, however, represents the refusal of man to proceed to seven, to give glory to God as Creator and Redeemer. It represents man’s fixation with himself, man seeking glory in himself and his own creations. It speaks of the fullness of creation and all creative powers without God—the practice of the absence of God. It demonstrates that unregenerate man is persistently evil.” Beatrice Neall, The Concept of Character in the Apocalypse with Implications for Character Education, pp. 153-155.


Well now.

Now we know. I think …

And if a word to the wise is wotever—don’t wait up (I’m off now to sow a few land-mines around my kennel) (ya never know …)

Do I look worried?


This is YOUR


and I hope you are proud.

Pretty kid—

—obviously full of the spirit of youth … enthusiasm, vitality, love, comradeship, sense of style … and I dare say quite lost to Reason. She looks as if she has sold her soul, no? (Yes.) And as she is YOUR daughter, who can be blamed for that?

selfieOh. Not MY daughter, you say? —she belongs to the family next door; across the street, in the next suburb, next town, next province, state, country … nothing to do with you. But—

in as much as the old (Africa? Pacific Islands? Universal?) saying holds truth: it takes a whole village to raise a child; wherever you live you are a part of a village. Think about it, I’ll hold the line—

—but bear in mind that every minute you waste thinking about it yet more wonderful human potential is lost to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Shiva and all who prophet by them*.


it is your duty as a Concerned Citizen to save this impressionable youngster from herself. No? (If no, read again and think about that “concerned citizen” bit). From her own innocence, naivety, and from all the bloated parasites that feed off unquizzical irrational inexperienced uneducated incapable enthusiastic virgin minds like hers.

Do I look worried?

(if you can be bothered …)


* If you doubt me, take another look at our opening image …


I’m so inspired

by another’s post/blog/comment that I screenshot copy it to my own post—

down there.gif

line birds.gif

Screen Shot 2018-08-26 at 11.00.57.pngline birds.gif

(Bugger~! )

I forgot the point I was about to make—damn! (‘Senior moment’?) (C’mon, who said that, I heard you and there’s no escape, ‘fess up!)

Never mind, moving on:

Lyrics available at the ref. Or even more better, as a postscriptem herewith (I love big words~!) below* —

—but when such a notion make one think preposterous thoughts, one has to think ‘Oh, wow~!’

gast me flabbers!

Oh, Wow~!

STARDUST — by Hoagy Carmichael**

Sometimes I wonder
Why I spend the lonely nights
Dreaming of a song
The melody 
Haunts my reverie
And I am once again with you
When our love was new 
And each kiss an inspiration
Oh, but that was long ago
Now my consolation is in the stardust of a song
Beside a garden wall, when stars are bright
You are in my arms
The nightingale 
Tells his fairytale
Of paradise, where roses grew
Though I dream in vain
In my heart, it will remain
My stardust melody
The memory of love’s refrain
Though I dream in vain
In my heart, it will remain
My stardust melody
The memory of love’s refrain



being stardust sure beats being that sunbeam thing that Jesus wants me for, that they made us sing about at school. Does ol’ Jeez still want us for sunbeams or has that all gone by the board nowadays? Sheesh … is nothing sacred?



** Yep. That’s him, Hoagy Wossisphace— remember the TV western series ‘Laramie’?