Cycling + => Free For All => Topic started by: sam on September 25, 2021

Title: New dark age
Post by: sam on September 25, 2021

The Lancet's "bodies with vaginas" ( issue (and their blatant double standard ( seems to be peaking a lot of people. It certainly upset my wife, prompting a bleak conversation of what lies ahead for cervix ( havers. Then there was the ACLU’s recent tweet ( de résistance.* To reframe ( a phrase, [What] [The] [Actual] [Fuck].

#BeKind ( #RabbitHole ( #GrossAnatomy (

*Apologies if that makes no literal sense; French isn’t my first language. It’s not even on the list.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Humbug on September 26, 2021
Aha, I am not a hexpert on this innerestin subjec, so I am inclined ter go off on a tangent innit...

I tried diggin oles when I wos a youfful rab but now I av mostly given it up becos a) it is ard work, b) yer get yer paws dirty, an c) I get me nosh providered by the P.A. anyway wiv no particuler need fer it wotever.

Sum rabs do av em.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: sam on September 26, 2021
Well Humbug, I've consulted Chompsky,


and he replied "mm-mm-mm" as usual. I took this to mean "I've had the op but I'm still a buck." I further interpreted his body language as confusion why an otherwise intelligent species would tie themselves into knots this way. I explained #BeKind (he’s not a particular fan of hashtags, once I explained those too), and brought Orwell into the conversation (his ears perked up at the mention of Animal Farm). I was about to get into why this erasure of the W word angered and upset the lone female in the household, but he was way ahead of me; he scampered over and licked her nose. He always knows what to say.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Humbug on September 26, 2021
Oo-er! Ok, I will attempt sum erudition on this one, wiv a little assistance, please bear wiv me.

We do not take the Lancet in this house. Owever the P.A. used ter work in a medical school wot did back in 1984 an she reckons this issue mite be an attempt at understated topical humour. Unfruiternately we are not privy ter the source ov the Lancet's recent quote, but if yer consider the formerly used word 'prostate' an break it down inter its component parts yer can imagine that a doctor mite feel a touche ov humour comin on.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on September 26, 2021
Apart from presenting something of a red rag to a bull, the Lancet does have some possible medical context for quoting, "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected." The point being that this is a very specific area of women's health.

Vaginas have been neglected even more than the rest of the female body in medical study, though not necessarily in practice - Intra-uterine contraceptive devices are one of many interventions which took place with insufficient research. There is a condition related to extremely painful periods - I misremember its name, sorry - that has only in the last couple of years been taken seriously enough to warrant proper treatment.

I would have to read the quote in context, but would not be surprised to find it arises in consideration of the greater focus on issues of the male reproductive organs than on the female up to now within medical education and scientific study.

Whether it merits a front page? The subject certainly does. Too irreverent? Maybe. I saw it as rather radical, considering current and historical context. Possibly I just have a peculiar sense of humour.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: sam on September 26, 2021
I would actually love for there to be humour that {almost} nobody is getting, though in that case it would be more a case of poor judgement by the Lancet for trolling a troll-weary public.

Here's the article ( (and here's ( the author. Someone suggests ( downthread that "the pronouns clarify the position.") To be fair, the W word does get an airing; but then so does 'menstruators'. It's an interesting piece and one can make a case for the particular language used. One can also see it as completely unnecessary.

The Vagina Museum which she/her writes about is on record ( thus: "So, whether you like it or not, there are people who are not women, who have vaginas." I guess people will make of that what they will.

Incidentally, that pic I used of Chompsky is an old one, pre-op. He's discernably still packing what Keir Starmer ( lacks.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on September 26, 2021
Thank you. The article is not uninteresting, but not front page headline material. There I was, anticipating an historical survey, rich in statistics, culminating in some strong research findings and/or initiatives. But the joke, it seems, is on me.

I so miss a good library. The having to know what you're looking for before you can find it is mind numbing.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: sam on September 27, 2021
Rachel Reeves ( gets her deer in the headlights moment,* followed by Jean Hatchet's coup de grâce. (

I'm glad the press are on top of all this.


This just in: a handy guide ( to when to use the W word.

*The following comment, concerning world menopause day, ( also comes to mind:
Quote from: ahagwearsapointybonnet
Honestly, reading it reminded me of one of those (Scottish?) sword dances, where they have the crossed swords on the floor and do all the complicated footwork while avoiding stepping on them. The complicated dance they do to avoid any mention of the taboo words - not only "women", but "periods" and "menstruation" (the entire reason we have menopause, as well as of course "hormones")...can you imagine them trying to describe the symptoms? "Well, you may get dryness in your... area, and people above this age should get their.....chest...screened regularly, and people who have had....part of their insides...removed may experience...the feeling-hot-and-getting-angry thing... earlier than others..."
Title: Reality bites
Post by: sam on October 10, 2021
I watched The Closer, as one does when The Guardian pans it then doubles down (, and am freshly reminded how it's not always wise to proclaim what's unfunny, because, well…

While I'm not sure I agree with Andrew Sullivan ( that Chappelle, good as he is

is the greatest living comedian (Greatest Of All Time as the man himself says, channelling Muhammad Ali), everything else he wrote is spot on.

Now this ( is funny (then scary, ( if you find the demand for training in how to reorient reality a tad fright ( "Affirm" indeed.) It's a pity the thumbnail is a spoiler.
Title: the latest from Auntie
Post by: sam on October 15, 2021
Question Time has landed.

A show of hands – how many are the same sex they woke up as this morning?

Define sex please.

Why wasn't I briefed?

It looks like I've got my work cut out. (

I find myself triggering, if I think about it too much.


The panels don't seem to be working. The stupid is still getting through.

Until next week
Title: The whole nine yards
Post by: sam on October 17, 2021
The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights (

the trans debate is unavoidable because it is really a crossroads, and one that leads in all directions in our culture: to freedom, censorship, identity, truth, scientific reality, and Orwell’s “secret doctrine”. The whole nine yards, in other words.

As a random example of one of the directions, see Sex matters in the city (
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 20, 2021
If the trans debate is unavoidable now it is stymied by having been avoided, religiously, before today's right-on consensus was established.

I keep trying to write an article about the many missed opportunities for transcending this regressive polarisation between trans activist and gender critical feminist perspectives. There are too many rogue factors - feminism being subverted from within by the comfortable careerists, gay liberation allowing itself to get mixed up with a fetish fashion statement, the nasty nature of social media - lots of lifestyle-based perspectives being confused with more essential matters of universal reasoning.

Fighting for specific rather than general liberation is dangerous - a long list of particular hate crimes will point fingers but leave the hate festering - hey, let's hate people who don't agree with us instead, right? This is so like bad religion it hurts.

Interestingly, I find that the proposed gender definition table linked in - (for the FCA to address male domination in the financial industry) - leaves me out again. I find myself saying either 'none' or 'don't know' faced with the contemporary redefinition of gender. Neither of these options are available.

Unfortunately I am unlikely to be offered work at The Guardian as a sub-editor. Pity, looks like they could use some.
Title: Repent, motherfuckers
Post by: sam on October 24, 2021
bump for Hitler (

Twitter isn't the optimal medium to be hashing this out, but the only way through this with sanity intact is to grab onto humour wherever you find it.

Good luck with gender identity extremists, who specialise in the inadvertent variety. Netflix Protests presents: tamborine woman. (

If you can't laugh (even if it's nervously) at the sheer unhinged brilliance of the double act of her and DARVOMAN, you're made of stronger stuff than I.

Yes "unhinged" comes up a lot, because that's what you see, over ( and over. ( And make no mistake, it's coming from one side.

Those who go on about the toxicity ( of this debate frequently paint a false equivalence. The gender critical crowd aren't the ones walking around with signs like this.


We're the ones dressing as dinosaurs. ( (I say "we", even though the only protesting I do is online to a gaggle of faithful bots.) Let's be careful out there. (

. . .

From a Mumsnet thread ( about Judith Butler's latest bucket o' words: (

Quote from: NecessaryScene
Has she completely misunderstood the gender-critical argument, or is she deliberately misrepresenting it? I honestly don't know.

Whatever it is, it just seems to be the case that she's an output-only device. There's no clear evidence that she in any way perceives the outside world or reality, or if she does it doesn't matter. She just produces words.

She's like Douglas Adams' Nutri-Matic machine:

The way it functioned was very interesting. When the Drink button was pressed it made an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's taste buds, a spectroscopic examination of the subject's metabolism and then sent tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the taste centers of the subject's brain to see what was likely to go down well. However, no one knew quite why it did this because it invariably delivered a cupful of liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

As I recall, Arthur managed to nearly doom the ship by trying to get the machine to produce some actual tea. I wonder what happens if you try to get Butler to actually address some real arguments or actually tackle the rights conflict.

More from the naughty corner:

Any other scientists feel like you are in an alternate reality? (
Quote from: AnyOldPrion
It’s one of the most amazing coincidences of our time that the biology of sex, which was straightforward enough to be taught to school children for many years, suddenly became too complicated to understand, right at the same time as men began to demand access to women’s spaces.

On a wider basis though, I do sometimes wonder if we are moving past the age of enlightenment and onto darker times. Religion often went hand in hand with science in the early days, and I wonder whether people are incapable of living without some kind of magical thinking, so that ironically, the “debunking of the existence of God” has left that segment of human nature wide open to other neo/pseudo-religious movements.

Irish women will be heard (
Quote from: AnotherLass
I think that the entirety of gender ID ideology is playing on the ambiguity over whether they mean it or not. That’s basically the grift.

    “I literally mean that transwomen are female when I am demanding that they be in women’s prisons and sports. I don’t mean that transwomen are female, when they go to the doctor. Of course not, that would be silly!”

    I think that most people think that they mostly don’t mean it. That’s the “outer knowledge”. The “inner knowledge” is that they mean it to a much greater extent than those on the outside realise, although they still don’t fully mean it. Because you can’t really, fully mean that males are females.

    At the end of the day, it’s basically: "I mean words literally when I choose. And when I don’t, my words mean nothing and you can’t hold me to them." Because it’s quite simply about being able to exercise arbitrary power.

It was a very dark time (
Quote from: Barracker
I'm pretty jaded now. There's little that would surprise me. Sports, prisons, refuges, schools. I expect no end of nonsense. But the one thing that never stops shocking me is that a law was created in the first place that took the word female, which provided recognition of the entire female sex, away from them and created a new, mixed sex, indefinable 'psyche' category that female would mean from that day on. I cannot fully comprehend the enormity of legally redefining all females so that men could be 'recognised' as females. That was the day we failed the female sex, comprehensively, utterly.

I'll never get over it, even when it's repealed, and I'm telling my great grandchildren about the insanity of the early 21st century.

"They literally stopped recognising every actual single woman and girl, every female person. And they told us that we were now all an identity instead of a sex, a psychology instead of a physiology. That was what female now meant. So that men could say they were women. And they did, hundreds of thousands of them did. There was no single word for actual females. We weren't allowed one. Our word was reallocated to men. We had to talk about ourselves as people with cervixes, or menstruators, and we had to agree that biology wasn't the real difference between the sexes, identity was. One by one, every reference to biological sex was replaced in every law with references to identity, until the law had erased any connection with female biology from pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood. Everything became something that applied to both men and women because it was forbidden to have real references to sex.

Stating that only females were women was enough to lose your job, or even be charged with a crime. Failing to agree with a man that he was a woman was enough to be ostracised, censored or threatened with legal action. Men took over women's sports, institutions, groups. Men represented us in every level of society, calling themselves women. There were no words to distinguish ourselves from these men. Everyone could see the female sex were becoming unspeakable people, unspoken of. You weren't allowed to acknowledge our separate existence from male people. Men committed crimes and society said women did it. You could never escape a man because he could follow you into any public space by identifying as female. People were very, very afraid to tell the truth.

Many hundreds of children lost their reproductive organs trying to become the other sex. It was a very dark time."

Margaret Atwood (

Quote from: LobsterNapkin
OMG, Jordan Peterson radicalized Margaret Atwood in the produce isle.
Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
Is this a cross between Cluedo and The Crucible?

"Trans Criminals are not Women" says Priti Patel (
Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus again
We are such Morlocks to their Eloi.

. . .

This just in:

Title: Not so funny
Post by: sam on October 25, 2021
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 25, 2021
Comedy notwithstanding, this -
is the article I would have wished to have written. (It is one of the many links en passant, darned if I remember which.)

It mentions the Yogyakarta principles, enshrining "each person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender...''

Since I do not have this, my responding to equal opportunity type gender monitoring questions with 'none' is correct, according to current practice. So thanks for clearing that up. I'll add the quote for clarification if ever I'm applying for a job.

I'm off to find or draw a cartoon that sufficiently approximates my reality.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: sam on October 27, 2021 is the article I would have wished to have written. (It is one of the many links en passant, darned if I remember which.)

Yes, that's one of the roughly 50,000 links I posted on the other thread. Excellent breakdown of 'cis', too.

I'm off to find or draw a cartoon that sufficiently approximates my reality.

I look forward to it. This has always been a personal favourite:

(I identify as both Charlie Brown and Lucy at the same time)

. . .

One wonders how much tea got spat out yesterday after Auntie served this. ( I've been following the discussion at the usual place [here ( and here ( and here ( and here ( and - well, you get the idea].

Quote from: OvaHere
I was massively shocked (in a good way) to see the BBC put this out today. It's about 5 years worth of journalistic suppression in one article. About time they played catch up.

Quote from: CompleteGinasaur
I know I will not be, by a long shot, the only woman on this board who remembers Stonewall's beginnings; we thought it a bit middle class and mandarin at times perhaps, but recognized the desirability of having an organization that could speak to the establishment in the establishment's own language. It did a fantastic job. We fundraised for it and marched with it and it delivered everything it was created to deliver. 

But the moment it changed its mission to include and then prioritise the "T" it destroyed its own foundational ethos. I'm afraid this latest spewing of incoherent word salad homophobia -lesbophobia, actually, because they're not the same thing at all - is just the final squawk of the Oozlum bird before it disappears up its own grotesque imitation vagina.

Quote from: Datun
The problem with the few bad apples is that trans ideology has set itself up to contradict itself.

 If a man is a woman, but he is heterosexual (i.e. sexually oriented towards women), he has no choice but to target lesbians as partners. 

Straight women do not validate him as a woman, because straight women only like men. 

His sexual orientation is alive and kicking, of course. And must be accommodated. 

So you only have to look at the cohort of men who say they are women, and are also attracted to women, to see the extent of the issue.

Quote from: EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
There is a discussion both here and on the Atwood thread about why people who are in closed communities that are engaged in thought reform do not wish to read primary sources that might challenge their views or they are deterred from reading them ("I read it so you don't have to"). 

People in those communities are encouraged to dispense pre-dispensed views from their thought leaders in the form of thought terminating clichés and stock answers, they are never to allow themselves to enter into a discussion that is based on a primary text that lies outside their own set of preferred beliefs. The penalty for going against the expectation of their community is a withdrawal of social support, a social network, and ostracism that can have far reaching consequences. The pile-ons to Margaret Atwood et al are to keep them in line.

 People who won't read the primary sources because of the challenge to their thinking will probably, at some point, experience cognitive dissonance about their reluctance to perform such a simple and everyday action. And then they might find themselves in the situations described here. (

Quote from: allmywhat
But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.

Why though? It’s not in any way in my interest to “include” more people in my sex life. My preferences currently exclude the entire population of Earth, minus one, and that works great. Obviously if you’re having trouble finding a date, then “examining your preferences” or whatever is a sensible thing to do. Or if you keep ending up in bad relationships. But if that’s not the case then why not keep doing what works? 

Clearly Stonewall are confused on this point because they think women are sexual resources to be distributed to men, and not people.

Video cringe factor 11, ( via Reddit.

Quote from: The_Cynical_Ploys
I'm always impressed with their uncanny ability to mix in a threat of violence when scolding you for traumatizing them by not indulging in their own fantasy.

. . .

Those Wonderful Women (
Bravo, OutsideContextProblem. On a somewhat less erudite note... (
Title: What a fool believes
Post by: sam on October 28, 2021
Confession: The Shame You Desire of Trans Women (
Informed consent as acquired taste.

Played The Fool (
My confession: there's no way I'm reading book length Judith Butler, ( and I don't feel bad about that.

(I didn't know Alex Drummond ( could sing.) (OK, they don't look that much alike, but it was my first thought.)

Nothing to do with the above, probably. I just like the song.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 29, 2021
Well I searched for my cartoon without satisfaction, until today! (I was almost a Peanuts fan. Having already fallen for the Pink Panther it was a case of not quite my bag.)


The refusal to investigate sources is really the nub of the problem. I being older than a new brigade of activists means they will never get 'where I am coming from' without this intellectual concession. Ironically, I dare say, a taste for intellectual rigor seemed to be seen as a 'masculine' trait when I was a nipper. Nowadays you can bash anyone with anything expedient.

We are a decadent species.

I'll be right back, after this s-word.

Title: Recognition and Ambivalence
Post by: sam on October 29, 2021
Any excuse to post this:

Nowadays you can bash anyone with anything expedient.

( (
clicky (

I should read at least one of Butler's books. Then again I should also read Moby Dick, ( which sounds as if it could be germane.

A tweet from a few years ago stuck in my head. It was a professor I follow, complaining about Stanley Fish. She was thanking someone for reading his latest article, so she wouldn't have to. Perhaps a joke, but in this case I think she meant it. As she often uses social media in a way that suggests she expects that students will be looking, I was actually a little shocked at the message this conveyed.

Like most, I frequently outsource my critical faculties. On Mumsnet you can tell who has done their homework.

. . .

Definitely have a soft spot for Charlie Brown & co, having spent my entire growing up years with the comics ( (where they were right on top) spread out on the breakfast table. And the holidays weren't complete without the specials.

Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 30, 2021
Perhaps one day I will come to accept and even embrace Brian Ferry as an artist, as I have with Elton John, Kenny Rogers and even perhaps Andy Warhol, but don't hold your breath.

Pepita Carpena, long active in the CNT and Juventudes in Barcelona, told this story about one of her experiences with a compañero from the Juventudes:

I’ll tell you a story–because, for me, what has always been my saving grace is that I’m very outgoing, and I’m not bashful about responding to people who give me a hard time…

One time, a compañero from the Juventudes came over to me and said, “You, who say you’re so liberated. You’re not so liberated”–I’m telling you this so you’ll see the mentality of these, these men– “because if I would ask you to give me a kiss, you wouldn’t.”

I just stood there staring at him, and thinking to myself, “How am I going to get out of this one?” And then I said to him, “Listen: when I want to go to bed with a guy, I’m the one that has to choose him. I don’t go to bed with just anyone,” I said. “You don’t interest me, as a man. I don’t feel anything for you…Why should you want me to ‘liberate myself,’ as you put it, by going to bed with you? That’s no liberation for me. That’s just making love simply for the sake of making love.”

“No,” I said to him, “love is something that has to be like eating: if you’re hungry, you eat; and if you want to go to bed with a guy, then…”

“Besides, I’m going to tell you something else. Perhaps you’ll get angry at me–(this I did just to get at him, no?)–your mouth doesn’t appeal to me…And, I don’t like to make love with a guy without kissing him.”

He was left speechless! But I did it with a dual purpose in mind…because I wanted to show him that that’s not the way to educate compañeras…That’s what the struggle of women was like in Spain–even with men from our own group–and I’m not even talking about what it was like with other guys.”

Lessons from Spain’s Mujeres Libres
Anarchism & the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women
by Martha Ackelsberg
extract -

The term 'intersectionality' later arose to address marginalisation of all kinds of people. Viewed as a mathematical progression, the typing of successive varieties of oppression is a Xenoic non-finisher, but this is not a popular view.

Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 30, 2021
Oh and please read Moby Dick and The Idiot! I don't think you will be bored.

Zen and the Art Of Motorcycle maintenance is not essential reading but great as an exposition of the problems of category theory. Where to make the cut between this and that?

Self-perception of 'gender' may seem more vital a difference than biological sex in a truly emancipated cosmos, but we are stuck with sex as as our progenitive mechanism. 'As a woman' I can't see any more fundamental point to draw the line at than the bodily bearing of children.

This brings me to question the deeper agenda of comtemporary trans politics within the modern world. I feel virtually convinced that there is infiltration by the elite genetic manipulation faction going on within Stonewall.


Annie Reading - from
Reading and Art: Lucian Freud (
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on October 30, 2021
Title: Battle outside ragin'
Post by: sam on October 31, 2021
Sarah Ditum today: (
Suffragists were called termagants; second wavers were called bitches; and anyone who argues for women’s rights today is called a Terf and defined as a fair target for harassment. Trans activists say they want to break the gender-binary norm, but their actions say they’re happiest when they’re breaking individual women.

Lessons from Spain’s Mujeres Libres
Anarchism & the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women
by Martha Ackelsberg
extract -

Martha led me to her partner ( Judy, which led to Lilith. (

“The Coming of Lilith" by Judith Plaskow

In the beginning, the Lord God formed Adam and Lilith from the dust of the ground and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life. Created from the same source, both having been formed from the ground, they were equal in all ways. Adam, being a man, didn’t like this situation, and he looked for ways to change it. He said, “I'll have my figs now, Lilith,” ordering her to wait on him, and he tried to leave to her the daily tasks of life in the garden. But Lilith wasn't one to take any nonsense; she picked herself up, uttered God's holy name, and flew away. “Well now, Lord,” complained Adam, “that uppity woman you sent me has gone and deserted me.” The Lord, inclined to be sympathetic, sent his messengers after Lilith, telling her to shape up and return to Adam or face dire punishment. She, however, preferring anything to living with Adam, decided to stay where she was. And so God, after more careful consideration this time, caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam and out of one of his ribs created for him a second companion, Eve.

For a time, Eve and Adam had a good thing going. Adam was happy now, and Eve, though she occasionally sensed capacities within herself that remained undeveloped, was basically satisfied with the role of Adam's wife and helper. The only thing that really disturbed her was the excluding closeness of the relationship between Adam and God. Adam and God just seemed to have more in common, both being men, and Adam came to identify with God more and more. After a while, that made God a bit uncomfortable too, and he started going over in his mind whether he may not have made a mistake letting Adam talk him into banishing Lilith and creating Eve, seeing the power that gave Adam.

Meanwhile Lilith, all alone, attempted from time to time to rejoin the human community in the garden. After her first fruitless attempt to breach its walls, Adam worked hard to build them stronger, even getting Eve to help him. He told her fearsome stories of the demon Lilith who threatens women in childbirth and steals children from their cradles in the middle of the night. The second time Lilith came, she stormed the garden's main gate, and a great battle ensued between her and Adam in which she was finally defeated. This time, however, before Lilith got away, Eve got a glimpse of her and saw she was a woman like herself.

After this encounter, seeds of curiosity and doubt began to grow in Eve's mind. Was Lilith indeed just another woman? Adam had said she was a demon. Another woman! The very idea attracted Eve. She had never seen another creature like herself before. And how beautiful and strong Lilith looked! How bravely she had fought! Slowly, slowly, Eve began to think about the limits of her own life within the garden.

One day, after many months of strange and disturbing thoughts, Eve, wandering around the edge of the garden, noticed a young apple tree she and Adam had planted, and saw that one of its branches stretched over the garden wall. Spontaneously, she tried to climb it, and struggling to the top, swung herself over the wall.

She did not wander long on the other side before she met the one she had come to find, for Lilith was waiting. At first sight of her, Eve remembered the tales of Adam and was frightened, but Lilith understood and greeted her kindly. “Who are you?” they asked each other, “What is your story?” And they sat and spoke together of the past and then of the future. They talked for many hours, not once, but many times. They taught each other many things, and told each other stories, and laughed together, and cried, over and over, till the bond of sisterhood grew between them.

Meanwhile, back in the garden, Adam was puzzled by Eve's comings and goings, and disturbed by what he sensed to be her new attitude toward him. He talked to God about it, and God, having his own problems with Adam and a somewhat broader perspective, was able to help out a little—but he was confused, too. Something had failed to go according to plan. As in the days of Abraham, he needed counsel from his children. “I am who I am,” thought God, “but I must become who I will become.”

And God and Adam were expectant and afraid the day Eve and Lilith returned to the garden, bursting with possibilities, ready to rebuild it together.

(One of those make of this what you will videos)

. . .

Zen I’ve done, and the whale guy I’d like to: even had my eye on one of those editions with a fancy binding, which I realise are more meant to be seen than read...

As for Bryan Ferry, I’m confident that swathes of my playlist would make your ears bleed.

Title: Boxes
Post by: sam on November 02, 2021
Quote from: Owlchaser
If you find ( that you're too undifferentiated in this economy, you may fail to capture market share and return poor profit to your shareholders. Rebranding may be required.

I took the test, ( then asked my wife to do it. (It's not the sort of bollocks she would get up to unless requested.) His and hers results:


I should write about this, and might at some point, but I'm lazy and a procrastinator, which I'm going to go ahead and call masculine traits.

Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Humbug on November 03, 2021
I fink the lesson ere is that the ole is more than the sum ov its parts.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Ernestine on November 03, 2021
Dot product...

( (
Title: Connect the dots
Post by: sam on November 04, 2021
This one's cheaper:

Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: Humbug on November 08, 2021
Also, I dare say, more enigmatic innit.
Title: Re: New dark age
Post by: sam on November 17, 2021
New International Olympic Committee guidelines (
Emma Hilton ( on top of this as always. Also Mumsnet (, of course:

Quote from: TeamRex
Just checked, the IOC do have anti-doping rules still. ( They care about people taking drugs to improve performance. 

Men saying they are women competing the women's events, great! Nothing to see here!

Title: New dark age
Post by: Voltaire on November 21, 2021
Janice Turner interview with Kathleen Stock. ( Guess who's namechecked.