We Like Dave

From Dave's Blog

I rejoice in my geekyness for loving the fact I got a "Dr Kawashima's Brain Training: How Old Is Your Brain?" T-shirt, the only problem is, when trying it on the whole geeky coolness look is totally destroyed by my slowly developing man boobs.

Today while putting on my bag
I punched myself in the face. It hurt.

The other night...no, I mean last night...erm, thursday night, yeah thats it, anyway, on thursday night I was poking around the cupboards in my house looking for something to eat and I found Ben's bag of flour with a hole in the bottom, (not the normal hole you would imagine), it looked like it had been...dare I say this out loud?
CHEWED!!
In shock I scampered up the stairs and informed my noble house mate to which I got the response "Dave, its 1am, I really don't care!"

Fair point I thought.

So I went to see if I could find whatever caused this travesty (I have been wanting to use that word since I started this ramble), in my searching I found a slug.

Not only was this a slug but it was a slimey one.

Not only was this a slug that was slimey but...wait for it....
IT WAS EATING THE FLOUR THAT SPILT ON THE SHELF! For about 2 minutes I stood mesmerized by this fearsome beast, it was only on closer inspection that I did make my most shocking discovery of the evening.
Slugs. Have. LIPS!

Why didn't anyone tell me!?
Why did I reach the 22nd year of my without knowing this piece of knowledge!?
Or maybe I knew it all along but was in denial...
It was strange, I was quite angry, this slug was mocking me with every chomp and lick of his lips. So, I did what any self respecting man would do, I reached for the closest thing I could use as a weapon and brandished it in a menacing way, and then with one mighty swing of my arm and a sharp flick of my wrist, a fine shower of sea salt rained down on my adversary.

It was a strange thing to watch, it was almost like he was melting, liquid seemed to just appear from nowhere and it kinda sunk into itself (no, don't misunderstand, it was a slug, not a snail...or a stimpy for that matter. And yes, I am referring to that episode of Ren and Stimpy when Stimpy gets inside his belly button and disappeared.)

Erm, can't be bothered to write more, basically, I poured out my salty wrath on it until it was completely covered, washed it off later and it had gone all small and hard and white.

Thats what you get if you don't tell me about your lips.

CHARGE!!!!!!!!!

However adults seems to be conditioned or taught to be cynical and expect the worst...EVEN IN CHURCH! (which is probably the reason why they let their children go up and look silly)

Arrogant spider:
Funny thing, you never bump into arrogant spiders...or maybe its just we don't notice their blatant egotistical ways.

Today I was thinking about the different forms Christianity and fellowship take. There are a zillion ways to worship, a Brasilian different ways fellowship is manifest through time and culture. I google imaged a brainstorm on this.

p.s This post doesn't really have a point, but it was interesting to research none the less.

Different models of church and Fellowship

Building somewhere to encapsulate Christianity in a city (thingy cathederal)

All the hype your money can buy (Hillsongs)

Arting to the glory of God (sistine Chapel)

The place to be (The Vatican Ghetto)

Jesus entertaining His crew (The Last Supper)

Faith in the middle of nowhere (Australian outback church)

Making culture churchful (Our old friends)

Mutual Support (Christian Unions / Christians Anonymous)

Love (In the Sanctity of our lil' Marriage)

Online support(NYFC Forum)

Christians doing what Christians do best (objecting to stuff)

The evolution of the church

....Just because

Quote from Dave's Blog

Dave on going to lunch at KFC

``I'm normally a sandwich man, but today, I needed the satisfaction of knowing I was eating the flesh of a small defenseless animal``

love benvolio, x

Man of the House

My pay slip is shown on the top... YES!!!! Who's the daddy! Ben is king! Bean earns LOOOAAAADDDSSS more than La!

I'm sure La will object to this disclosure of personal information, but that wont be before she's fetched my pipe and slippers... for I.... am a man!

My Throughts on Pslam 121

Psalm 121
A song of ascents.
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills—
where does my help come from?
2 My help comes from the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

3 He will not let your foot slip—
he who watches over you will not slumber;

4 indeed, he who watches over Israel
will neither slumber nor sleep.

5 The LORD watches over you—
the LORD is your shade at your right hand;

6 the sun will not harm you by day,
nor the moon by night.

7 The LORD will keep you from all harm—
he will watch over your life;

8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going
both now and forevermore.

Something to object to

Today I am feeling sorry for the Christians. There are no government bills that don't include the exoneration of the church to protest about, no anti-gay ralleighs to attend, no liberalist politicians to slander. And as such, I'm feeling positively drained: at the moment there's nothing to object to as a Christian, and as such, my walk with God is feeling a little baron.

O come, sweet liberalism and let us picket at your feet once more!

By the way that was sarcasm, but it's nice to see that on the whole, Christians have gone about a month without embarrassing ourselves too much over trivialities in life.

However, today a government think tank called InterGod proposed a `makeover of the church and religious scene in Britain`. Lord Milbert Dilbydew from the Department of Religious Unification had this to say:

`With the current increase of religious believers, measures have to be taken before they all take over society. It's implausible that a stable society can be governed when more than more than fifty percent [of the population] believe in some higher being or life form. As such, I've had express orders from the Deputy Prime Minister to rectify the impending crisis.`

The draught bill is being put to the House of Lords tomorrow afternoon, but it's expected to propose the unification of all major British religions into a single recognised church which is currently being dubbed: `Faithonism`.

Dr. Rowan Atkinson, current Arch Bishop of Canterbury welcomes the new move and says `this should be one step closer to the long awaited harmony between Christian, Muslim and Sikh and all other believing peoples. I've known Lord Milbert for many years and support the bill with vehemence`. However, Haseem Al Jabazaaharraar-el Macheem of the Muslim council of great Britain says it's one more example of religious persecution and the watering down of people's beliefs to pave the way for governmental monopoly of the church`.

Leaks from civil servants inside Westminster have shown a new watchdog, Ofgod will be set up to maintain order in the new unified religion. They will be responsible for making sure, that none of the followers of `Faithonism` show any radical signs of independence of thought or interpretism of the yet to be disclosed scriptures (expected to comprise the `best bits` of the Torah, the Qu'an and Rob Lacey's `bible in a year`. Their duties will also include policing some of the more extreme members who look capable of causing destruction on the world at large.

A civil servant in the Ministry of Religious Unification who is working with the establishment of Ofgod said this about it:

The main role [of Ofgod] will be to replace the role of *Faithonism* leaders. That is to say, the final unified religion will have no leaders, only beaurocratical figureheads. (Lord Milbert Dilbydew is expected to take responsibility for this in the interim). It is expected that many old religious leaders will object to this move, however, we feel that with careful liaising with Priest and Rabbi alike, they will see the obvious and immediate benefits of a church whose foundations are laid in legal policy rather than the tested and failed deities so highly affiliated with the 19th century.

Members of the cabinet all refused to comment on this at the moment, however, when he was Home Secretary, Jack Straw has been quoted as saying that `religious reform in Britain is far overdue, and too many people worship who they like how they like. This big muddle of a liberalist multitude of faiths will be the downfall of society in Britain, and to make society truly multi-cultural, all religions MUST be unified in the name of political correctness...`. (Mister Straw later abandoned this quest when he claimed he should be the `honourary God` of the unified faith programme).

In a press conference earlier today, Lord Milbert Dilbydew announced that the religious unification programme is expected to begin in December, and it is hoped that there will be no religious unorthodoxy by 2010. He also announced a budget of 2.6Billion pounds has been set aside for the project out of the state treasury. He also confirmed a definite name to the new faith has not yet been finalised. (He also rejected `Dilbydism` as a possible candidate for the eventual name).

Teenage Christians' rights to wear purity rings at school

` Sikh bracelets, but no Christian rings at school bans pupils from wearing 'purity rings' ` - Telegraph


It's sad, but when i read this article, my immediate reaction was `is this fair? Erm, Carl will know the answer`.

However, in the absence of the guru of objective pessimism that is Carlos Online, I'll just post what I think.

It's an odd situation. To those too lazy to read the article, some Christian teenagers are wearing purity rings to school as an illustration of their sexual purity, but the school won't allow them. The argument the bretherin dan Sanctus Christum pose is it's not jewellery (as the school deems it), but a religious expression, and not being able to wear these is a denial of human rights. (Also, they were quoted as calling the rule `really unfair` which is some heavy food for thought).

The Christian in me wants to say `that's cool` and be gladdened by the enthusiasm of the wee lass, but I know that I'm not quite objective enough that should a Muslim lass insisted on wearing a ring to show her sexual purity for Allah against the values of the system; I'd be slightly annoyed that something had to be compromised to accommodate what is in essence, something between a religious fad and a fashion.

The point is, that whether Christian or for any other religion, the rings are superfluous. As much as I feel the school should encourage sexual purity in youth, the Christians have an equal obligation to be lights in their actions and as such, respect the system that accommodates them. That is to say, the rings aren't needed for the faiths they're arguing they're trying to express and the only purpose they serve is to irate the school and give Christians the sort of press that encourages the term `Bible Basher`.

No doubt Christians like Matt Hill will encourage the stand of defiance and say this is another example of Christians needing a voice. (Reading the girl's comments in the above article, they seem made for each other).

The school's arguments themselves are in fairness, sketchy to say the least:

``The school's concern was that, if Lydia fell and put her hand out to stop her, it could cause injury. It is obviously discriminatory and absurd.`` - Lydia's mum.

That's mental! I think the school is more concerned with the integrity of its standards than it is the danger to the health of a Christian and minister's daughter who wears the ring out of defiance. And dare I say quite rightly so? Should a Christian whim compromise the stature of the school and the sanctity of its rules? Or should freedom of expression (be it religious or otherwise) and `human rights` (in however small magnitudes) be one of the ultimate educations in school? I'm not quite bold enough to answer that question.

However, for one fleeting topsy-turvy moment, I find myself siding with the Sikh/Muslim example posed by the journalist.

Although the school allows Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear head scarves or kara bracelets as a means of religious expression,.... the purity rings are deemed jewellery

It's surprising, but reading between the lines, it seems the journalist has a Christian slant to his approach to the issue which is awfully refreshing. None the less, whereas Kara Bracelets and headscalves are a fundamental scriptural aspect of the faiths of those who partake, the purity ring is not to the Biblical Christian, and serves no more significance than that of rosary beads... that is to say (as I mentioned before), the superfluous quality of the rings are their own demise. Whereas I'm sure the subject of the article finds the ring of great use, if the argument truly is about religious freedom, then God doesn't propose any other reminder of life as a follower than to love one another. At work I remind myself of God's love by loving others. When I feel distant from God, I make an effort to love, when I'm stressed on the phone, I love the caller (and it really is the most startling revelation). Back on topic, if, like i said, this really is a religious freedom issue, then as a struggle for expression, the ring itself is the cause of and ultimate perpetrator of the strife it causes.


p.s – just noticed the editor's typo in the headline at the beginning of the article

The Path To Conservatism Is Paved With Experience

Tony Blair's letter to Michael Foot (linked below), makes for a truly fascinating read. It' s obvious to see the man's ambition and head for leadership even in 1982.

I don't think there's a great deal I can say about it, however, it seems interesting to note Blair's transposition from his ``irreversibly altered`` Marxist following to his current (apparent) right wing disposition. The writer of this article seems to think Blair was just trying to impress the then party leader by saying the right things (and to be honest, if it was me, if it meant getting a finger in the pie of one of my managers, I'd probably follow suit). However, I pose a different explination to that.

It seems every student, every young and naïve co-worker who's compus-mentus enough for a coherent political stance (with whom I've ever worked), every blissfully self-fooling humanitarian idealist; all seem to have a vision of some socialist utopia. However, every real world petty bourgeoisie, every experienced pensioner, every person whose lived long enough to understand the world and seen enough changes to make a conscious decision; seem to all tend to the right.

Perhaps that's an unfair generalisation, but my two cents is it's the naïve of the world who aspire to the Marxist shangri-la* and its the more matured or experienced who echo Sir Winston Churchill's quote: ``[conservative] Democracy doesn't work – but it's the best idea we've tried``.

This leads us to another question: Do people's political orientation change because they become pessimistic over ill demonstrated (but frequently attempted) mutual equality, or because their careers and/or induced worship of money are mutually conducive to the mindset of the petty bourgeoisies who define the contours of the terra firma that is: the right?

All I know is that in much the same way the aging process entices people rightwards: my Marxist armour is slowly being displaced by my ISA and my career steps. And, as Mister Blair has inadvertently illustrated in his political meander: perhaps the ``best idea we've tried`` is the most pragmatic approach to society. His letter says this:

``The trouble with Marxism is that it is fine if you make it your political servant but terrible if it becomes your political master``

I should argue the line between a system being your master and you mastering it is a line drawn in futility as; for any political system to be practical or viable, you must first sub serve to its dictum and make yourself its subject – yet you must simultaneously control it and embody its values in yourself in such a way that the system works to the furtherance of its partakers and followers,( ie, yourself). That is to say, a political school or epoch can only be thus; based on the integrity its shown by enactors. (The same can be said for the church)

Blair furthers the issue of constitutional and institutional integrity by saying: ``there should not be a party within a party. That is a correct and necessary rule, not a constitutional accident.``

So in a Mallet's Mallet move back to the first question: `was Blair just a yes man to please his boss?` - I don't think he was, and I should also say if Michael Foot's political standing was anything other than to represent the ousted working force (who were left unemployed by the then Thatcherist regime), he too would have followed suit and governed the society with a conservative glove.


* The ones, perhaps brainwashed by the educational or family institutions in which they've grown up and from which they've only just been emancipated.

copy of letter

Loving sinners and the Norwich Cathederal

In my endless persuit of picking faults in the most pointless of places with modern Christians and the 21st century church, the great dollop of genius that is Carl bought ponderation to the table about the idiom of Christian idioms that is: ``love the sinner, hate the sin``. This makes for interesting reading, also, take note of La's comment.

Further to my growing unease with the modern church, my daily trips to the Catheral are growing steadily more holyful. I'm working late shifts this week which means 11-8 with an hour lunch at 430 at which time I leave to the cloisters with the sandwiches made for me by that La I know. Staring up at the building in it's ostentatious grandeour, I'm reminded of the reservations I once had about such frivolities and the waste of time and money that supposed Christians could have put to better use elsewhere. However, I now find myself endeared to the place. Aside from the obvious fact that it's growing on me, looking down the cloisters and imagining monks praying for the city for their provision and just praying for the sake of God's holiness kind of makes the building a little more real. Also, walking down the nave with the amazing ceiling and three tiers of balcony, I realised today that when Thorpey (another lump of intellect) once said it was built as an act of worship, it wasn't to reflect God's glory, but to show people that God is worthy of the most amazing thing we can make.

I'm sure to have built even the simpler parts of the building would have been a feat and half in them days, but to still impose the wow factor now (to a society who has to spend £500 quid on an xbox 360 to get its kicks); to still inspire the mind of God a thousand years after it was first built; to build a living thriving morseleum that literally encapsulates a millunium of God's people and works is an amazing thing to have down the road.

It's cool to spend an hour or less with this in mind in the midst of my day at work. It's cool to find the still sanctuary in the cloisters with La's sandwiches and God's peace, and then wonder inside and see how many people have loved God so far to martyr themselves and/or become benefactors. Many people take exception to the amount of people who have bought their legacy into the stonework, but on the whole, it pleases me to see how many men and women of God on whose shoulders I stand must have thought the same thougts as me.

I couldn't find a google picture that reflects the mood of the cathederal, but here are two pictures I took about a year ago which I think captures what I'm talking about.

Awesome don't do media satire...

... But if they did, it'd probably be the best satire in the world

Awesome don't make headlines...

but if they did...

they'd probably be the best headlines in the world.

love benvolio, x

``I don't believe in equality`` - Owen Morgan

I think I've said all I have to say on the Awesome Generation, however, Owen started an msn convo this evening, which I think makes for some rather interesting reading. He brings some good points like mutual equality; authority in the church; the role of church etc, all of which are blogs in themselves.

I don't say anymore than this, but I'd urge you to read this convo. I copied it letter for letter so it's as was so to speak...

-------------------------------------------------------------

Owen Hello Ben

Me heloo
Me Still thare?

Owen Yep
Owen Hello
Owen Sorry was busy

Me Me too (was watching Fawlty towers)

Owen have you thought about what I said at fridays?

Me which particular bit?

Owen Any of it

Me I thought about what you said with regard to `only the people in the church can comment on the church` and I'm afraid i take exception to that. As to the rest much as I was (as I am ever) interested with talking to you, there was a fridays and a jobhunt and about three months or whatever between then and now and I can't remember much more.

Owen that's a shame
Owen you only heard what you didn't agree with
Owen also I didn't say that
Owen Never mind

Me I'm happy to go over it again. I do apologise about forgetting your point though, I honestly appreciate the effort you made to speak with me.

Owen I don't have time to say it again
Owen and it clearly falls on deaf ears. I sincerely tried to share my heart on things and what I have learnt in my limited experience I genuinely believe that i have wisdom i can share that is very much relevant to you. However I'm not sure you want to hear it.

Me I should say of all the people in the rawlsome generation, I think you're probably the person who actually understands where I'm coming from (and of course I don't deny your right to contest it)... Please don't think I've no intention to listen to you, however, I think before fridays isn't the best time to put something in my head as it's pushed out straight away by fridays etc. Perhaps (again, if you have time), you could email your thoughts on the matter.
Me I didn't mean to say rawlsome there btw, Freudian slip :s

Owen I don't have the time -for someone who is so rude about my church or my paster -refering to the rawlsome generation shows a despicable lack of respect for a man of God.
Owen I'm glad that what god was saying through Phil did fill your head then. You know the word of God has the power to change your life if you'll let it.
Owen Ben, i believe that time spent talking to you is probably wasted and I am a little busy. Sorry if that sounds rude it's not it's just honest, you however are precisely that rude. I don't have time to email you I'm afraid I would prefer it if you refrained from commenting on our church until you have the maturity to stand up to criticism and more importantly correction. You lack discipline, Ben.
Owen and your problem is a dangerous one
Owen My thoughts in short
Owen thanks
Owen I pray that you will come to use your powerful brain constructively to serve God's purposes in Norwich

Me Why do you call Tom authority?

Owen I wasn't referring to Tom
Owen You have a problem with authority in general do you not?

Me I wouldn't say that at all

Owen Tom has authority as God's chosen leader of the church

Me Says whom? Under what scripture?

Owen His authority issues from the holy spirit, sent by Jesus the son of God
Owen Throughout the new Testament this is evident
Owen It's a chain of command
Owen Revelation if particularly clear that one is answerable for the church

Me Maybe I'm an emergant, or maybe this is just a mere misunderstanding of symantics, but authority infers there's a God given right for Tom to bear authority over me... Why did Jesus tear down the temple curtain if my relationship with Him wasn't meant to be explicitly personal? Is Jesus not my high priest? Is Tom not more than a pastoral guideship than an authoritative figurehead? I don't think it's an authority problem that says that, I think it's a megalomaniac who says `follow me to Jesus`

Owen Really?
Owen I believe that is what Jesus asks us to say
Owen We are supposed to be cities
Owen lights that shine
Owen That show the way to God
Owen The bible speaks clearly about instruction, correction, admonition, and rebuke
Owen That requires authority invested by God in his leaders (as per Eph 4)

Me Which part? I'll look up

Owen Your opinion is dishonouring
Owen the Bible teaches honour

Me My honour lies with God and his son He sent, not with men

Owen In honouring God you honour those he has placed in your life
Owen you are not an entity and a law unto yourself
Owen Christ speaks and acts through the church

Me And if tom has no `godly` obligation to honour me, does God advocate inequality?

Owen honour is not an enemy of equality
Owen you have misunderstood the terms

Me I understand you're busy, but perhaps you could pin point some scripture and explain them to me...

Owen On what ben?
Owen I'm not sure we read the same Bible

Me `the terms`

Owen honour and equality

Me to whom?

Owen with equality there also exists honour
Owen they are not opposed

Me with equality there exists mutual respect, which i feel is different to honour. And equality has no place for authority.
Me (as a footnote, Christianity gets really rather socialist at parts)

Owen “honour a prophet and you shall receive a prophets reward”

Me Where does the bible say that?

Owen look at what happens when Jesus goes home and he is not honoured too!

Me this is about honouring me who call themselves authority.

Owen Matt 10:41

Me Hang on...

Owen I don't believe in equality
Owen Look at matt 5:12 – some have great rewards in heaven -others have greater? Other have less? -Jesus refers several times to people being greater than others in heaven.

Me Hang on again...
Me I think that (and bear in mind we read different Bibles), is a misrepresentation of scripture... the verse talks about the reward in heaven. Not the stature of its inhabitants. And the verse before, 10:41 talks about discourse and Jesus not coming to bring peace – not about denying authority... which again is different to prophets.

Owen I have to go

Me indeed

Owen tomorrow I am involved in the most significant thing happening in the world
Owen the local church
Owen :)

Me What?
Me !

Owen Eph 1:23 (Msg)
Owen Chapter and verse just how you like it :)
Owen Can't believe you bought me down to your level
Owen Precisely why I must leave

Me Is the local church less significant than the UN, the GA, the global summit, the millions of charity workers every day? I should say that's a show of arrogance

Owen the church is Christ's body !!
Owen what could be more significant!!

Me indeed `I want love more than i want offerings` can't remember the exact translation/verse but Jesus says that?

Owen really?
Owen I don't see how that's significant
Owen church is more than offerings

Me I think the peace of a nation or the ease of suffering is a lot better than the discipleship of the Christians or the limits of a PA deck... that's just my opinion.
Me If the church is any less than an offering to God – it must be built on man's desires

Owen i think you misunderstand the concept of church ben

Me please enlighten me

Owen the bible says not to correct a mocker

Me and i say don't take the bible out of context and be so good as to answer my question

Owen I don't have time
Owen check the context, examine your life, and read psalm 1
Owen Good night

Me Cheers for the talk
Me tek care, dude
Me x

Owen and you

Ranting Gentleman and Iraq (and musings on humanitarianism)

I'm always a fan of ranting, but I think I might very well abdecate the crown of editorialism in favour of this gentleman here.

It's refreshing to hear a view of Iraq who's limit doesn't reside at `Bush is such a gaylord`, and, as much as the happy days of a nation siding with itself rather than its media are all but anachronous, the mindset of the patriotically American and greater-good humanitarianism of this chap is really rather intriguing.*

I've never been entirely decided about the war in Iraq, but the way the media (inc NOFX/Greenday) have capitolised on the war they supposedly despise and the way the left wing populus have a field trip in Bush attacks at a personal level (for what IMO is no more than an internecine edification of their own fabricated moral standing), I've tended to side with my contrary nature and abjectly beleive that all this money, effort and vote wasting [by Bush ; Blair] is doing at least some good, even if it is at a level which surpasses the `o my gosh, that's someone's dad and husband who died` stage.

I can't speak for the American mood over the last year or few, but it does seem that everyone vehemently despises Bush, despises the war, and with every bus bomb there's a media surge to get the higher ground, however; when Iraq is freed, the statues of Hussain are pulled down, when Hussain himself is captured and tried, when Zaqawi is killed and when we're kilometers away from Bin Laden :- the furore hushes and whether it's a perspective that dawns on these left wing humanitarianists or whether they're saving face and don't feel like it's a current moment to disparage the war, silence falls and only acceptence if felt by the populus. I should venture with every `termination`, the populus of each country involved should be euphoric. I find it regrettable this is not the case.

I should think the term payback is a bitch is a little too uncouth for my tastes of objectivity in respect of world affairs, but I'm with said blogging gentleman in so far as I am pleased that a murderer [al Zaqawi] who orchestrated other murderers has been killed, and if Bin Laden were to be killed, and Sadam bought to justice at the expense of a fraction of innocent civilians, then I think it's more humane to let these things to pass than to turn a blind eye.

I think one of the many things I love about being British is the calm consideration one gives to a situation, and as such, it's taken me this long to make any sense of what's happening in the Middle East. However, scenes like the `termination` of Al Zaqawi assure me that progress is being made, even if it is at the expense and sacrifice of what could be deemed `much more`.

When all said and done, I think Oldranter, the left wing objecters, the right wing supporters, the informed politician and the layman on the street are all humanitarian - the only difference being: where the individual defines `much more`. Furthermore, I conclude** the media are the least humanitarian of the all parties involved. They are the ones who make money on it all (and argue if you must that France (or even America) have prophited amorally on the war, but don't for a second think that they are any less moral than the media themselves). It's true that there's no news like bad news, and it's true that Bush and Blair are celebrities and we [Brits?] are the one's who love to grind their names into the mud and jump on their graves.

But isn't the ultimate goal of the war freedom, democracy and peace? How much of that does the media actaully advocate in its actions towards the war?



* sorry for the poor sentence construction there.
** wow, `furthermore, I conclude` are a great three word word!

Matt

I discovered cartoons at work, so I made this little collection...

Elk 'n' that...

Elk:


Worship lyrics of interest:
- `Woah` - from United: Tell The World
- `Na na na na na na na na` - from that Redman fella





Best Star Trek Captain:
Jean Luc Picard!! (obv!)




Poor Man's Entertainment of Current Favour:
Copying Suduku templates into the graph paper I bought for VI form but never used... and then solving said sudukus.



Statistic of Inspiration
63% of adults access the internet, however 37% do not. http://www.statistics.gov.uk .



Fact:
11 > 7