What's · six · multiplied · by · seven?

I was wandering around youtube and came accross a video of Stewart Lee on religion. Some channel 5 show or other. Very good. Check it out.

It's called Don't Get Me Started (I'd link it in, but it's in 6 parts.)

More evidence that Lee is one of the most intelligent people this country has produced...

"There are few better tools for understanding human experience than the rich heritage of stories like the christian myths ... handed down to us by the world's faiths.
Why is it important, then, to be allowed to comment on, criticise and, yes, laugh at religion? At best religions have inspired some of the greatest music, literature and art in history, and provided a mytho-poetic framework for our finest ideals, hopes and values. At their worst religions have been used to excuse the most viscious aspects of human nature - legitimising persecution, genocide, slavery and war. When religions embody immorality and irrationality they must be open to critisism." Stewart Lee

I have been struck down today by the strange affliction of 'getting up at 7 in the morning on a day with which you have nothing to do.' It has thrown into light once again the reasons that my sleeping patterns are so prone to wander aimlessly around the clock. I spent a week trying to get some 'more normal' hours of sleep and have succeeded only to discover that when one has very little to do it doesn't really matter what hours one is awake. Getting the occasional burst of sunlight is good, though. It's cheered me up a bit, as I had forgotten that it existed.
My real problem, though, is that due to my lack of potential activities I got up, made a coffee, and started to trawl the interwebs for things to shake the general ennui. That was now eight hours ago. I thought about trying some other stuff, but I can't bring myself to be absorbed into a game and I've watched so many TV shows over the last couple of days that I wanted something a little less passive and I didn't want to enter some kind of psychosis where I begin to believe that I'm actually in TV Land (it doesn't matter how much you believe, you have to make Earl Grey yourself - the microwave won't listen to me.)
I now find myself in the position of not having anything left to do with the net, and considering that it's supposed to contain most of the accumulated knowledge of the human race this fact worries me. I ran out of web, and now I truly know how Spidey feels.
What do you do in this situation? I'm not going in a chat room, as they're all mad and if I want human contact I'll go out into the real world (which, let's be honest, is infinitely better for the socialising thing.) I could go to ED and start just pressing the random page button, but that tends to get old quickly.
I think I really need to get a job.

I know you're up for it, card0, but everyone else - who's with us? I'm thinking we head to blackfriars tube station on the 10th Feb as it looks to be right round the corner from the nearest CoS to where we are. It's gonna be about an hour by train, and I can't imagine that the cost will outweigh the fun to be had by all (even for us poor bastards.) Join Us!!

146 Queen Victoria Street
London
EC4V 4BY

10th February (A Sunday... what else are you gonna do?)

Let's have some free speech shall we? Maybe with chips.

Found this while I was trawling around the web earlier. Remind me why these people are allowed to walk the streets of the world unfettered. Read it and weep:

"Los Angeles, CA (Rotters) - In a tersely worded statement at the Los Angeles Church of Scientology, spokesperson Tom Cruise today announced that the Church of Scientology would be pursuing all means, legal and otherwise, to shut down the Internet group referring to themselves as simply "Anonymous". Cruise went on to reveal that special Church of Scientology investigators, working out of the Sea Org branch had been able to track online those responsible for hacking the church's main website. According to Cruise's prepared statement, Sea Org investigators were now relatively certain that their arch-nemesis Xenu was behind the highly coordinated series of attacks.

"We find ourselves on the forefront of a battle for the minds and spiritual energy of the entire human race," stated Cruise. "It's going to take the resources of all Scientologists, from the lowly street sweeper to the nuclear physicist to push back against this subversive suppression of religious freedom. We will not rest until the entire human race is cleared."

Cruise played for reporters the most recent YouTube communication from "Anonymous".

"Note the stilted, mechanical, almost Borg-like quality to the voice," stated Cruise. "Sea Org has, with 99% certainty, matched the voice of the narrator to archival recordings of Xenu in our possession. We will be turning over our findings to the FBI, and our lawyers will begin pushing for charges of hate crimes to be brought by legal authorities."

Cruise refused to elaborate for reporters what other alternatives the church might pursue. He then vigorously denied rumors that the church was prepared to conduct extreme rendition upon suspects that might come into their custody. The church has come under fire for the death of a former Scientologist, Lisa McPherson and has continually denied that the death was the result of a controversial technique called "Theta Boarding".

"The Church of Scientology does not torture," insisted Cruise, "brainwashing is not considered torture... look it up." "

You have to wonder what it is that they're afraid of, really. Except for the fact that they're quite patently terrified of their 'religion' being seen for what it is by anyone who hasn't paid the $300,000 to get to that vaunted OT3 level as they want your $300,000. So you don't actually have to wonder. I think, given full access to the facts, that noone in their right minds would hand over a cent (or a penny, or any other lowest-possible-denomination-of-currency from another country) for the kind of stuff that these people are selling.

I enjoyed the perceived link between Anonymous and Xenu (the evil galactic despot who's directly responsible for all of our troubles.) To the best of my knowledge, Anonymous is a loose affiliation of actual living humans who have taken offense to the behaviour of this cult (I'm gonna get shit for that one) of Scientology. But it seems that the cultists (not letting it go) are aware of that as well (or at least the Cruise is) as they're talking about pressing 'hate crime' charges with the FBI who, when I last checked, have jurisdictional authority that ends at the borders of the US, not authority that spreads to whatever corner of the galaxy Xenu might be holed up in at the moment. So I think that we can agree that it's human beings doing this. Yeah? Is that OK, Tom? Humans? Yeah....? Or the Borg. In fact the statement (if you set aside the logical progression of thought, language and reason, but when in Rome) suggests that the Sea Organisation (Hubbard's petty little revenge navy) are 99% certain that Xenu is a Borg. (Also, are they going to turn over the recordings they have 'in their archives' of Xenu to the FBI, and if they don't, will that be considered obstruction of justice by the legal community?)

While I'm on the whole 'cult' subject, and this cult's unwavering ability to get livid at their cult's description as a cult, I feel that I should point any of the cult's members reading this (and there will be - this cult don't take no shit) to this next part of this section about the fact that this cult is a cult, which is coming up now, look, it's about cults and the cultish nature of this cult :

CULT:-

# adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
# fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
# a system of religious beliefs and rituals; "devoted to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# In religion and sociology, a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream or with a notably positive or negative popular perception.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

# (noun) 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. 3 something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society.
The Online Oxford English Dictionary

So it's a cult then, by almost any definition of the term. Some (and the cult of Scientology are big on this) will describe the word cult as a derogatory term, but it tends to be people in cults who see it like this, and if one were to look the word up, one would see that it is not. Hell, lets just take the Oxford English version (always been a fan) and take a look at Scientology from it's perspective...

Hmmm... (refer to above quote) 1 well, they've got that one.... 2 yep, that too.... 3 looks like we got a threefer. That's three out of three there, guys. Any questions?

In any case, back to the Cruise's statement. He seems to feel that what Anonymous are doing is a 'subversive suppression of religious freedom', which I'll agree would be a bad thing, but would not removing the right of people to vocally disagree with a particular religion (or all religions) be exactly the same thing? To suppress religious freedom, surely one has to do something that actually suppresses the freedom to be in a religion, not merely the freedom to see some websites about it (they won't really tell you anything about Scientology anyway, as you have to pay) or talk openly about the reasons to avoid a religion. Hell, people have been doing that for millenia and not even the 'big three' are allowed to do anything about it anymore, not even kill people (I know, what's the world coming to?) Are these cult members so unsure about the veracity of what they believe that simply asking questions or mocking them is enough to shake their faith?

The Cruise then goes from his religious freedom spiel to 'We will not rest until the entire human race is cleared.' Now I'm not going to explain the whole 'cleared' thing as it's complicated and you can look it up for yourself, but that sounds like the sliproad to the suppression of religious freedom. What if I want to believe that the world was created in six days, or that if I live a good enough life then I can spin off the cycle of life and into the perfect oneness that is the single universal consciousness, or that a spaghetti monster in the sky controls the world around me with it's noodley appendages? Can I be 'cleared' then? Or will they force their beliefs on me and strip me of my own? Hands up who's going with the latter.

And what's with this 'we're not going to perform extreme rendition on possible suspects' thing? For one do they have their own room at Guantanamo for when they are going to (which his statement does suggest that they do, just not this time apparently)? Secondly... er.. What suspects? He said that their 99% certain that it's Xenu, so why aren't they going after him? Seems the logical thing to do, but as already discussed logic seems to fail these guys on a disturbingly regular basis.

If you want an idea of what this cult will get up to in terms of coercion, or if you don't know about Lisa McPherson, then I strongly suggest that you take a look at http://www.lisamcpherson.org/ which describes the sequence of events that led to her death. Only look at the autopsy pictures if you don't mind looking at that kind of thing, but they are revealing as to the lengths that this cult will go to get its way.

Finally '"The Church of Scientology does not torture," insisted [the] Cruise, "brainwashing is not considered torture... look it up."' I did look it up, and he was right. But the thinking behind it is changing, and quite rightly so. France have made laws against it (although the yanks were desperate to stop them), but in America http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com has this to say:

"Despite the high value placed on free will in the United States, the harm caused by ... brainwashing ... rarely been addressed by any specific legislation. The criminal law ignores this unique crime, and civil claims do not directly address it either."

But if you want a real indictment of brainwashing (which isn't torture, honest) go to Google and look up Elizabeth Smart, Patty Hearst or the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. Check that stuff out, Cruise, and then tell me brainwashing isn't torture.

Ok then. Sorry to have rambled on a bit, but I'm pretty angry about this whole situation. I just don't like to see the rich take advantage of others for their own financial gain, and that's what this cult is doing. But I take heart in the fact that I have challenged (successfully I hope) everything that the Cruise spouted using nothing but logic and the ability to think in a straight line. Yay logic, bring it on home.

I'm going to be putting this up on my MySpace as well due to the genuine fear that the cult will have me silenced on one or both. But I'd like any Scientologists reading this and fuming to keep in mind that you can probably get this removed if you want but I will post it again and again and again if I have to. My freedom of speech on the internet WILL NOT be curtailed, and neither will that of anyone else on the planet. This is what the net is for and if you don't like it then get out.

Thankyou for listening (well, reading). You may go.

Watch this shit and cower in fear. It's about 25 minutes long, but go with it. Isn't it about time something was done?

Well, I'd forgotten how engrosing the internet can become. Having set it up last night, I started trawling around, occasionally popping back to my game for short periods. Then it was 7 in the morning. Hmmm... At that point I decided that it might be an idea to get some shut eye. However, minutes after lying down in bed, I remembered that I have to sign on this morning at 11, and the concept of 3 hours sleep didn't appeal. So I made what seemed to be the logical choice - to stay up. I'm sure I used to be able to do this when I was younger, hell I used to stay up drinking for three days straight.

My brain hurts

In what seems like my constant refrain on these places, I am once again back online. This can only be a good thing. My dad has got me a year of interwebs for good ol' Xmas. Christ didn't just die for our sins, apparently, but for thousands of years of free cool shit for everyone who happened to be born in an area of the world where primatives were beaten down by the Romans a very long time ago. Also for an arbitrary day - utterly unrelated to his birth, death or anything he did - where the entire ethos is to start drinking somewhere between staggering bleary eyed to the toilet and lighting the first cigarette of the day. It's good that some aspects of Christianity remain relevent in today's world. Not that I'm suggesting for a second that it's a bad thing. My full intention on the 25th is to have a drink safely nestled in my hand pretty much exactly at that moment. Because, kiddies, that's what Christmas is about.

In any case, my posting will likely remain infrequent and strange, but it's nice to know that I can.

I have spoken....

Well, I just finished the last Harry Potter book last night, and I have to say that it was most enjoyable and yet another book that I had difficulty in putting down.
I have to say that as much a I dislike J.K for falling into the money and fame trap as she did, she does string a good yarn.
The thing I think I most enjoyed in the book was that Harry finally did what everyone's been waiting for and stopped being a whiny little pussy. Well, at least he stopped giving in to his whiny pussy thoughts and actually did something. He got nasty, which was cool. And it ends exactly as it should. Defeating Voldermort, and then getting all the characters together who should have been and doing the whole 19 years later thing - cheese, but good cheese, the kind of cheese that's cheese for a reason.
Another thing - with all the battles and shit in this book, providing they don't fuck it up like they did the latest one, the film of the last book's going to be something to behold, so we still vaguely have something to look forward to after the whole 'no more harry potter' thing.
If you haven't read it yet, then do so, it's entirely worth the time unless you haven't read the first six, then it probably won't make much sense.

I'll be playing a gig at the Fox and Fiddler tomorrow night at about 9pm. It's my first gig in nearly a year, so I'll need all the support I can get.
I'll be doing a bunch of songs that most of my friends will enjoy hearing again, and if that isn't good enough for you, I'll be joined for a couple of numbers by the beautiful vocal stylings of Ruth Atkins, so it's gonna be a good one.
It's blending into a bit of a mad weekend, as my brother's coming up for it, and it's his 23rd on the Sunday, so drinkage and all that. We need to show him a Groovechester stylee birthday of epic proportions. Dun't know exactly what we'll be doing, but I did hear about some music thing going on in the park in the afternoon of the 29th, so we might check it out, but I certainly forsee a number of pubs and a wild amount of alcohol.
Be there or be a rhombic dodecahedron.
Join us.........

I found this article this morning. Marvel at the bad science....

"Regular use of cannabis can more than double the chances of suffering psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia, scientists have found.

The data, complied from 35 different studies and published in The Lancet, shows that taking the drug just once increases the risk of mental illness by 41 per cent. For frequent users, this rose to between 50 per cent and 200 per cent.

Scientists found heavy cannabis users were the most likely to suffer a psychotic breakdown marked by delusions, hallucinations or disordered thoughts.

Around 20 per cent of young adults claim to take cannabis at least once a week and around 40 per cent are believed to have tried it at some time in their lives.

The research, funded by the Department of Health and based at the University of Bristol, implies that 14 per cent of psychotic illness now affecting this demographic could be prevented if no one took the drug.

Danish experts Merete Nordentoft and Carsten Hijorthoj calculated that taking cannabis might account for 800 new cases of schizophrenia among 15 to 34-year-olds in the UK each year, assuming a causal relationship.

Commenting on the research in the journal, they wrote: "This finding has tremendous implications for young people, their families, and society."

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is currently mulling whether the drug should be returned to class B status after his predecessor Tony Blair had cannabis downgraded to class C, meaning possession was not an arrestable offence.

Alternatively, a class B rating could be reserved just for the extra-potent form of cannabis known as "skunk".

Senior author Professor Glyn Lewis, from the University of Bristol, said: "It is difficult to be certain about whether cannabis use causes psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia.

"It is possible that the people who use cannabis might have other characteristics that themselves increase risk of psychotic illness.

"However, all the studies have found an association and it seems appropriate to warn members of the public about the possible risk."

Colleague Dr Stanley Zammit, from Bristol and Cardiff universities, pointed out that even if cannabis did increase the risk of psychosis, most people using the drug would not get ill.

But he added: "Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses."

© Independent Television News Limited 2007. All rights reserved."

Now, I'm not going to go on at length about the bad science in this sham of an article too much, as it kind of jumps out at you, but look for the line "assuming a causal relationship." Erm, excuse me? How does that do us any good in a scientific study? Assuming a causal relationship. Jesus.
Incedentally, I have just completed a study that should worry anyone living in a two-bedroom flat - I applied a questionnaire and medical tests to 147 smokers who live in two-bedroom flats and found that living in such an abode doubles your chances of developing a smoking related disease. I did this, of course, by assuming a causal relationship. Hell, if government funded studies can do it then so can I. I also found a link between fairy liquid and eating your own feet, but that's a different story, and one that the public could do without hearing.

Note also that the article starts with a statement of what scientists have discovered (as a fact) and then ends with one of the scientists themselves stating that it could, indeed, be wrong. I don't like these people.

Really, though, what's it going to be next? 20 years ago it was the whole "cannabis makes you do all the other drugs under the sun and then die in a gutter somewhere with only the hope of a pauper's grave and an eternity of fire and brimstone," now it's "assuming a causal link" with psychosis and schizophrenia. I'm sure we're coming up to "it'll turn all your children into retarded fish frogs and bring down all the governments of the world and force humans to survive by living in bunkers on tinned food coming out only to war with other bunkers full of other stoners for mars bars, chocolate biscuits and the prime tanning spots."

What I want to know is why the legal drugs don't get this treatment. Alcohol causes both physical and mental illness in the extreme, but perhaps the governmental types are too attached to their scotch at the end of a long day trampling on the freedoms of their public.

If they can find an actual link, then we should be told about it, and something should be done, but is it just me that thinks that this issue only comes up when they're trying to deflect attention from something else? What is it this time???

Just for those of you who won't make it to a pub before Saturday, I thought I'd post this picture I took with my mobile yesterday :




It's one of the very last times I expect to see something so beautiful anywhere indoors that isn't my house (and my house never gets that smokey.) Damn them and all of their evil works. They're not only taking the fun away from pubs, but the aesthetic as well, but at least you can still see it here.

OK, this is quite embarrasing, but I'm going to post it anyway, as it's quite funny as well. FOR I AM THE CLICHED DRINKER!!!

I went out on wednesday night with some friends to help my brazilian flatmate sample a selection of single malt whiskys, of which I am a big fan. Duncan and I decided to take them to the Oddy, which is where the single malt lives. Now, this is all good thinking up to this point. I remember a very good night starting, and then, at some point, my memory cuts out completely.

I woke up the next morning with my foot in agony but, being a man, thought that it'd probably go away if I ignored it. It didn't. After walking around on the thing for a couple of days, the pain got so intense that I thought it mught be an idea to get it looked at, which I did.

The upshot of the experience was that I had got drunk and broken my foot. This is not good. I'm quite proud that the doctor was a bit amazed that I'd been walking around on it for two days, but that doesn't detract from the fact that I got drunk and broke my foot. Fuck.

I haven't broken a bone for thirteen years or so, and I'd forgotten how much it hurts. I did what I believe is called the metatarsel (sp?) behind my middle toe- snapped it clean in half. So now I have to walk with a cane, and I'm supposed to wear this mad looking stormtrooper-esque boot the whole time (which I'm not because I'm a man, and I don't listen to doctors.)

The moral of the story, kids, is that what they say on the drink adverts really is true: 'Drink Responsibly'. I never really believed it til now, but I think I might take it a bit easier from now on (how long will that last?) as I appear to be old enough to fall apart now.

Anyway, going off to limp around now. Don't break your foot.

A pair of scientists at Rice University in Houston, Texas have discovered a wonderful effect of the human skeletal system.

"Bone is known to be a great conductor of sound ...... They found the skeleton conducted even low-power vibrations from one location to another with surprisingly few errors." newscientist.com

They've found a way of transmitting digital data using our very bones using a technique called frequency shift keyed signalling to generate different frequencies representing 1s and 0s. They hope to be able to use this mainly for your standard medical stuff - easy communication with implants, and stuff that you don't want environmental interference (wi-fi, radio etc.) But the piece of the article that interested me was :

"Similarly, tooth clacks or finger clicks could be interpreted by a receiver to activate, say, functions in a phone." Again at newscientist.com

At which point I get to my point. I WANT TO CONTROL THINGS WITH THE CLICK OF A FINGER!! This is what we've been waiting for these damned scientists to do. Turn us into the Q. Am I wrong?

Now I'm not saying that this is getting us all the way (if we were like the Q, we'd be non-corporeal and wouldn't have skeletons as such [unless we wanted to, but who really wants a skeleton, they just bring you down]) but it's a start. I'm all for saving lives and doing the environmental thing and feeding the world and all of that, and scientists should be doing that shit as much as possible, but they should be doing more to give us that "technology that's indestinguishable from magic" that we've all been waiting for. I'm sure that a PDA would seem like magic to a guy from the 6th century or Cornwall, but not to me.

I want flying chairs, finger clicky magical devices and, if possible before I die, the ability to transport myself to any location in the universe at will. That's all, and I don't think it's too much to ask.

What is it with all the girls? Is it some aura of indecisiveness that I, myself, project onto people? It would be nice if someone could tell me exactly what it is that I do that'll make a girl who is obviously interested in me hit on me and then run away; kiss me and then run away etc etc etc.

MAKE A BLOODY DECISION, PEOPLE! (You know who you are.)

And remember : On the internet, noone knows you're a chicken......

A giant chicken.

Well, I'm finally back on the internet. New house, new ISP, all'a that shit. And it's real internet, too, not internet stolen from people too stupid to encrypt their wireless. Or password their router. Or take their keys with them when they go out. I wondered sometimes if I should just wander upstairs and see if they were prone to leaving their doors unlocked as well. But no, it's all legit now, providing I can manage to pay them on a regular basis. Yay.

My life is much the same as it ever was. Full of indecisive women, too much drink, and an almost pathological inability to find people to work for that can put up with me for more than eight minutes. But it has to be said that the drink helps with the other stuff, if not the drinking itself.

I am, however, living in a new house with a guy from Brazil called Raph, and the lovely Sam.

That's about all the news. I think.

Catch y'all later.

I've just had some fun reading some sites about ID and creationism. I like something to laugh about at the weekend. Gives me something to do.

They do scare me a bit, though. But you can kind of dismiss any document that begins with the words "Evolution is an organized belief system that encourages humans to deny their most important responsibility as part of the created." It's just silly. You can sit there and repeat over and over that Evolutionary theory is a belief system, but it just doesn't make it true. Trying to turn the arguments used for years against such things as creationism or ID onto scientific theory just rings a bit hollow. These people just have to accept that any religion is a belief structure by definition, and arguing that it isn't is a waste of time, and it's not really the point anyway.

They do use that 'responsibility as part of the created' line again. It's in the same sentence in which they describe all 'evolutionists' (is that actually a word, or did they make it up to make rational scientists sound like fundamentalist religious nutters?) as, essentially, workshy sinners: "they're still lacking any evidence to support their (underlying; as sinners) desire to (putting it bluntly here) hide from our Creator and their responsibilities as part of the created." Hmmm.

I have another question. Is it, in any way, rational to anthropomorphise any deity, either physically or psychologically? It's that wonderful cause and effect misunderstanding. Did God create man in his own image, or was it vice versa? (This has been a couple of questions... one more.) Can you equate the design and production of a motor vehicle and the construction of the entire universe?
"Evolution is a valid process (in science, business, or otherwise); creationists certainly agree with this - when it is directed or built into the design of things. Certainly automobiles have improved dramatically over the past 100 years, but it didn't happen all by itself. The evolution of the automobile has been due to intelligent design input, advanced engineering skills and management oversight."
Something tells me that you can't.

So, hang on ,the argument really does boil down to : We build stuff, right, so, kinda, y'know, someone must've build us. And we don't, y'know, build stuff without a purpose or reason (except all that stuff we build without a purpose or reason) so whoever built us, must've wanted to. Yay! Go humans, it's all here for us. OK. It's comforting to think like that, but it's also as irrational as saying that humans were given two arms so they can smoke and drink at the same time. Although that is a thought.

They also make a beautiful scientific argument against the Big Bang. They say that "A "Little Bang" happening all by itself inside an empty box would be unscientific. Something from nothing for no reason is unscientific. Creationists, therefore, standing on the side of science contend that there must of necessity be a Creator."
Well, that clinches it, doesn't it? But, wait, can't that be used on both sides? Whether it's the big bang, or God, or the Great Green Arklseizure, doesn't it all hinge on creating something from nothing? Shit, that means it's all crap. And the worst part of that is... We're not really here. Arrggghhh!

You can find all of this at <A href="http://www.creationism.org>this site</A> along with this final quote, which i don't really have words for : "The Big Bang is primarily believed because without it they'd have to admit that God created everything." Yes.... Well

Well, I finally gave in. The two guys I live with have been using this for ages, and they go on about it a lot, so I thought I'd check it out. And why not, I ask you.
Haven't had reliable access to the internet for a while, but should have the whole broadband thing up and running soon (don't you just love a 'big pipe', hehehehe.)
All the wonder of worldwide communications. Nothing else to say really, just marking my territory **pisses on scrollbar, then looks around furtively**.
Be good.....