Okey-dokey, then. It's Halloween. Six numbers from me, of an unashamedly psychobilly bent. Feel free to add your own ghoulish examples, from any genre, in comments.
Archive for October, 2013
Via change.org comes this disturbing news about patients in NHS maternity wards being preyed upon by sales reps; and we're paying them to do it!
… In maternity wards across the country Bounty sales reps abound and an alarming number of new parents are reporting feeling harassed and pestered by them. Even worse some are reporting being misled, lied to and disrespected at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. Why is this being allowed in our NHS? And why is Bounty being paid by HMRC to distribute Child Benefit forms as they travel the wards?
In 2011 – 2012 HMRC paid Bounty £90,000 to distribute Child Benefit claim forms within the packs that they hand out to new parents on wards. Bounty has become the only paid vehicle for distribution of these important forms. Why? Why not give the forms out when a birth is registered – a sure fire way to reach 100% of new parents without the involvement of a commercial enterprise and the blurred boundaries that this seems to have created.
Child Benefit forms and Bounty's role in distributing them has become a hot topic over the past few months of this campaign, as it has emerged that some Bounty reps have been misleading parents about the need to hand over their personal information to the rep, before they can have the form. This abuse of the situation Bounty has found itself in, as the main distributor of the form (by a very long shot) needs to stop.
Please sign this petition.
You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †
If violence is how you show
Your highfalutin moral rectitude—
Well, please excuse, if I seem slow
Or maybe just a little bloody rude,
But it seems to me you're rather dumb.
Your logic has a certain toilet-taint.
Did you pull it from your bum?
'cause "moral" is exactly what it ain't.
I have to tell you, Gentle Reader, that I really really do not grok the dictionary atheist (because: Deep Rifts!!!!) argument. That is, the argument that we cannot say that disbelief in gods will have any consequences for the disbeliever other than not believing in gods. (Though it's true that we cannot say what those consequences will be for any particular person, notwithstanding my conviction that they should lead to a liberal worldview.)
Allow me to indulge in what might seem a digression…
Reblogging this so that (a) folks at my blog can have a fucking good laugh at the erm, “logic,” and (b) i can point out that it’s fucking hilarious, without having my comment spirited away where the woodbine twineth.
Seriously, if anyone can sort out the word-salad and explain to me how not believing in gods equals believing in gods, I’ll… I dunno, but I’ll think of some kind of reward.
I have often heard it said that there are no such thing as atheists, even atheists believe in God. Now, no atheist would ever agree to this proposition, however I always believed that it was a clever play on words (to be an atheist = (literally) to be “without” “god.” Hence you need to believe in God in order to deny that there is a God. Clever. Well along comes David Bentley Hart in The Experience of God and makes a clear argument why even atheists believe in God. Here is what he has to say:
It is an old maxim — one that infuriates many unbelievers, but that happens to be true nonetheless — that one cannot meaningfully reject belief in the God of classical theism. If one refuses to believe in God out of one’s love of the truth, one affirms the reality of God in that very…
View original post 115 more words