Psychomeopathy?

Some of you might have heard already, but if you haven't, there's been a news story recently concerning Catholic doctors selling homeopathic 'remedies' for homosexuality [and I'll be honest, I'm worried that the inverted commas around 'remedies' in this context won't be able to contain the pressure of ridiculousness trying to escape].

Apparently I wasn't alone in ignoring this story when it was first flagged up on that there twitter and Facebook places. It's obviously a spoof, I thought. Apparently, it isn't. This is deeply worrying. It's not hard to see why some skeptics and rationalists have had a hard time believing this, it's wrong on so many levels. Overall, it's stating that Catholic doctors are recommending homeopathic treatments based on highly diluted platinum in order to treat homosexuality. This one sentence is completely mad on a rational, psychological, medical, chemical and ethical level.

For starters, it's always worrying when professional doctors start treating patients based on their religious beliefs rather than actual evidence-based medicine. My own thoughts on the whole 'homosexuality is an illness' thing have been stated quite clearly, but even if you do believe it's unnatural in some way, that's not really how being a doctor should work if we're honest. Then there's the whole homeopathy angle itself, which is essentially the go-to alt-med whenever a skeptic or rational person needs an easy target (I'm no exception to this sort of behaviour). As you probably know, homeopathic remedied via serial dilutions until there is none of the original substance left, and the water supposedly retains a memory of the original chemical. Whatever you think of this theory/belief/obvious fantasy, even if there was some merit in it, I'm pretty if I had to dissolve something in successive bodies of water water (or at some stage I think, alcohol), I imagine I'd struggle if I tried it with platinum, a metal prised for its chemical inertness. To even make a start with dissolving platinum, you need some incredibly powerful nitro-hydrochloric acid. Mere water is literally not going to put a dent in it (unless its applied via high-powered steam jet perhaps, but then dents aren't believed to have medicinal properties). And there's the whole belief that, even if homosexuality were some serious mental disorder (which it isn't), it could be treated with a few pills of some vague description. Treating mental processes with chemicals (actual ones) is still a very complex and poorly understood process, and certainly isn't a quick and easy one. The brain does not bow to simple molecules so easily.

But the one thing that occurred to me, when singing sensation Doctor Evan Harris flagged this up on the twitter under with "Catholic docs offer homeopathic 'treatment' for homosexuality", my first thought was 'what the hell are they diluting for that?' Now if you're like me, a) I'm deeply sorry, and b) when posed with that question, your mind probably went to a very dodgy place. As well as the ridiculous 'extreme dilution makes chemicals more powerful' notion, homeopathy also operates under the assumption 'like treats like', meaning patients should be treated with substances that cause the same symptoms that they're trying to alleviate. E.g. insomnia would be treated with caffeine, arsenic poisoning with arsenic, and so on. Thing is, here they're claiming they can treat homosexuality. So what substance which is associated with homosexuality would they dilute? Something readily available, something that a non-homosexual would not want to put in their bodies? I personally couldn't help but go down the 'gentlemen's reproductive emissions' route. But obviously, that isn't the case. And thankfully so, what if a heterosexual female accidentally took the remedy? She'd be shaving her head and burning her bra before you could say 'pointless placebo'.

I'd probably been too judgemental in my initial analysis. I know homosexuality occurs in both genders, but as these doctors were Catholics I was assuming that any illness afflicting a woman would be deemed irrelevant. But more fool me.

Anyway, I discovered that they were diluting platinum, and I'll be honest, if you asked me 'what substance would you associate with causing homosexuality?', platinum wouldn't be top of the list I'd come up with. Probably not even top 5. So I had to wonder what the rationale behind 'Platinum àHomosexual' was. In daily life, you're probably most likely to come into contact with platinum in jewellery. Stereotypically, gay men wear more jewellery than their non-gay counterparts (let's avoid the matter of where on their bodies they wear it), so is that the logic behind it? I'd say this pattern was more an effect than a cause, but that's just me.

But then it occurred to me, if they do genuinely classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, then one cause of mental disorders is heavy metal poisoning. So there is a certain logic to treating what may be caused my metal toxicity with metal. Admittedly, it's usually mercury and other metals that are associated with neurological damage, and I've never seen any indication that one of the symptoms of metal toxicity is 'an irrational sexual appreciation for members of your own gender', but come on! Given the context we're talking about here, that's still an impressively rational approach.

Admittedly, it might just be due to a misprint, where someone sent an email to the homeopath lab stating that 'homosexuality is a mental disorder' but dropped that important 'n' in the process. A remedy that 'contains' platinum is probably one that they can charge more for.

So it's platinum. Other possible homeopathic remedies for homosexuality suggested via the social networks include Cherry Coke and Village People CDs. Obviously people joking around with stereotypes, but is this any less sensible than the reality presented to us in the article itself?

But this got me thinking, if homeopathic remedies can apparently treat mental conditions that aren't actually mental conditions, why stop at homosexuality? (My reluctance to Google whether or not they already do is the only reason I assume homeopaths don't already do this, and I'm aware that I might be very wrong in this assumption). So, in case this is the start of a new trend, here's my suggestions for other homeopathic treatments based on the same logic (or lack thereof) shown above. The supposed disorder is referenced, and the possible treatments (i.e. what causes it that can be diluted to treat it) are listed. Feel free to contribute suggestions of your own in the comments. Any homeopath offering them from this point on can be threatened with copyright infringement.

SYMPTOM: STUPIDITY

Possible Treatments:

• Alcohol (a widely known reducer of intellectual prowess. Note: sometimes the original substance to be diluted is dissolved in alcohol, so this should prove a bit of a quandary in preparation)
  
• Silicon of Jordan
  (directly extracted from the mammary region of one of the UK's most influential sufferers)
  
• Cowell's False Tan
  (similar to above, highly diluted epidermal sample of the man largely responsible for the spread of stupidity in the UK)
  
• Pentapeptides (you know why)
  
• Homeopathic remedies
  (should cause amusing confusion during the preparation/pseudoscientific explanation process)
  

SYMPTOM: RACISM

Possible treatments

• Essence of Littlejohn
  (bodily fluid extracted from the country's biggest, most celebrated racist c**t. Remedy also treats homophobia, sexism, elitism, inability to grasp logic and massive unsubstantiated persecution complexes)
  
• Marmite
  (seems to seriously increase sense of national pride and resentment of foreigners, for some reason)
  
• Marmalade
  (a similar-named preserve to above, but for different reasons)
  
• BNP Literature
  (shredded and mashed into a fine pulp and diluted into oblivion. Won't treat anything, but any method of destroying that stuff is worth encouraging)
  
• Melanin
  (innocent molecule which, logically, on many levels, is the cause of racism)
  
• Growth Hormone
  (people apparently become more right wing as they grow older, so accelerating the process would make them more right wing, and therefore racist?)
  
• Blood
  ('rivers of blood' is/are strongly associated with racism, extreme homeopathic dilution of blood is logically comparable to a river of blood)
  

SYMPTOM: QUICK TO ANGER

Possible treatments

• Aura of Moyles
  (Sterile water is stimulated by radio waves carrying a full-length Chris Moyles show, then diluted and sold. Also available in Gaunt, Westwood and Limbaugh for overseas customers)
  
• Clegg's Promise (Normal water that Nick Clegg has promised will cure your illness)
  
• Banker's Bonus (Used cheques/notes that were paid to bankers during the credit crunch. Note: Even using homeopathic logic, this isn't as potent as the real thing, use with caution)
  
• Malik's Malady (A pointless, ineffective treatment that is constantly administered to you despite it being unwanted and unhelpful)
  
• Cameron's concoction (Dilution of a compound of fluids gathered from the British Prime Minister, largely saliva emitted as he laughs uproariously at the plight of the poor)
  
• Pentapeptides (again, you know why)
  
• Laughing Cow cheese (Probably just me on this one)
  

SYMPTOM: CATHOLICISM

Possible treatments

• Hint of choirboy
  (You really need this explained?)
  
• Uncontracepted (Water, but filtered through a permeable condom of some sort)
  
• Orphan Child's sweets (Confection taken from a poor child and diluted pointlessly, to enhance the all-important guilt
  
• Transubstantiated Substance
  (diluted bread and/or wine taken from the communion ceremony. Unique amongst homeopathic remedies as it genuinely does contain as much of the active compound (Body of Christ) as the original sample)
  

I might add more if I can think of them. But again, feel free to play along.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The 10 Commandments: 2.0

21st of May, next week, is the end of the World. Apparently. Biblically speaking, anyway. And I find there's nothing like a looming deadline to realise all the things you haven't done. If the reality predictions are wrong, then it'll become clear that the Bible and associated religions need to be updated. If the rapture does occur, then we only have a few days to show the almighty vengeful God who embodies all peace and love on goodness that we have been paying attention all along, and what better way to do that than by reworking the religious teachings so that they still apply to modern society?

Granted, there are probably hundreds of better ways, e.g. going to church, praying devoutly for hours a day, and suddenly setting fire to your homosexual or alternative-faith friends. But that sounds like a lot of work and expense (petrol alone is ridiculously expensive these days, whether you use it for travelling/burning). But none of those make for a particularly interesting/legal blog. We already have a secular Bible thanks to AC Grayling, but in today's modern fast-paced society, who has time to sit and read a massive book? Even if it's presented via a 'cool' high-tech medium. But more and more of us seem to be coming more rational and dismissive of religion, so an attempt to incorporate science and reason into the Bible, although counterintuitive, is probably essential, as Grayling has noticed. Especially with, you know, the rapture and that. But in this culture we need sound bites, summaries and abstracts.

I've always felt like the 10 commandments are like the 'blurb' of the Old Testament. Easy to remember, quick to read, generally useful pointers for daily life. But you could easily argue they're outdated, considered by most of society to be less outright 'rules' and more 'rules of thumb'. A good example of a rule of thumb would be 'never base a cliché on wife beating', but that's beside the point. As a result, I reckon the 10 Commandments are ripe for a new version, a full overhaul, to make them applicable and useful for modern times. The originals were read on a tablet, so it seems ideal really.

So, what are the 10 Commandments, why are they outdated, and why should they be updated

1	"I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no other gods before Me. Obviously, this one comes first. It's good business sense, God at the time was new and fledgling, so the first he'd need to do was make sure his followers stayed loyal. Even today's trendy modern youngsters can get their heads round this, judging by the number of hysterical overreactions I've seen when someone loses a facebook friend or twitter follower. But although logical, it's not necessarily accurate. Longer versions of this commandment specify that God freed Moses and his gang from Egypt, where there was a veritable plethora of Gods. And the Greeks, and Romans, and those in the Middle East, and India, and China, and so on. There were loads of Gods before God. But I understand that it's not saying God was the first God, but that you 'shall have no God before me'. But technically, this rules out people converting to Christianity, which doesn't seem like something they'd agree with. It essentially is the Bible hanging a 'no girls allowed' sign on the door of it's clubhouse (which doesn't sound too far from the truth, actually), so is effectively ignored. This seems to encapsulate up a general and worrying tendency of many people to selectively adhere to the truths that are convenient for them, while discarding others which are equally valid but less convenient. Whether religious or not, it's important to acknowledge and accept facts. If you believe God is the true God because it says so in the Bible, then the rest of the stuff in the Bible should be equally valid, especially if it's by the same author. Likewise, if you believe something because a 'scientist' said it, then other scientists should have just as valid a claim to say it's nonsense. If one scientist says something, but if hundreds or thousands of more qualified scientists in the same or even more relevant fields say the first scientist is wrong, you can't just ignore them (see antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers and David Icke). So, in order to maintain adherence to these commandments and the rules they lay down, and discourage mad behaviour and beliefs, the first Commandment becomes Updated: Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions.
2	You shall not make for yourself any engraven images, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. This seems like a re-emphasis of the first commandment. It reads like 'Seriously, I'm the only God you're allowed to have. I don't care if you make it yourself, it's not a God, I am'. I guess people worshipping home-made objects was a big problem in the old days. Although you could argue it's persisted somewhat. It's quite grating to be around anyone who owns multiple iPhones and sees Steve Jobs as some kind of Techno-deity. These Macolytes even have their own churches and rally's, all for the worship of small flat plastic things. And how many manufactured bands or celebrities are famous purely by dint of the media surrounding them? Simon Cowell, Cheryl Cole, they clearly aren't normal humans as we know it so clearly have been engineered in some way, and yet they are adored without question. This goes for the self-help gurus, radical scientists, alt-med practitioners, and so much more. Obsession and fanatical adoration of non-real or non-genuine people and things is as rife as ever. Perhaps with a bit less emphasis on religion and home crafts, this one's a keeper. Updated: Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so.
3	Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain… Basically, don't bad-mouth God. On that count, I'm earned a number of extra eternities in the pit of fiery torture for this blog alone. But these days, when people say things like 'Oh, God' or 'Jesus Christ!', it's not people actively wanting to disparage religious icons, it's just our language has evolved to the point where the original blasphemous nature has been replaced by a pure frustration or surprise at what is undoubtedly not a spiritual or miraculous event. But restricting what people say in this manner runs completely contrary to freedom of speech. Stopping people saying things on the ground that you 'don't like it' isn't really on at all (despite the best efforts of some). You being offended by something is no excuse to stop something happening, unless the thing being said is being said purely to upset and offend and has no logic or merit outside of that. Unfortunately, the ease of communication these days means this sort of thing is very common and easy to do, and there are many who clearly feel some satisfaction from being anonymously and pointlessly insulting to complete strangers. Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom to be a pointlessly vindictive twat? I don't think anyone gave their lives for that. Updated: Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube)
4	Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. The Sabbath is not so holy these days, not since Wetherspoons started opening on Sundays. Also, given that the Sabbath immediately follows Saturday nights, it's unlikely that anything particularly holy or spiritual occurs to most people. Not in the mornings, anyway, although many will probably have made vows and religious proclamations while embracing the porcelain. But there are always complaints of things being too hectic lately, to fast paced, too stressed, so an emphasis on relaxation is probably a good idea. Less stress means less anger, less violence and less intoxication. Updated: Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year.
5	Honour your father and your mother. A reasonable point, be good to your parents. A more cynical person could view this as an attempt to make sure people are subservient to a higher authority, and then God becomes our 'Father' and gets indirect respect an obedience via a learned reflex. Lucky I'm not cynical, then. This can lead to abuse and bad results though. People from broken homes and/or who have parents that really shouldn't be allowed near lamp posts, let alone children, they're bound by this rule to honor and obey the people who birthed them for no reason other than a biological fluke. But also, it is not always parents who raise you or help you out, it can be foster homes, or just good friends. And the father and mother thing suggests it only applies to typical heterosexual couples, not same sex couples. Christianity doesn't much like the idea of same sex marriage anyway, it seems, but what if you want to obey this commandment but have two mothers or two fathers. Do you respect one and subject the other to constant streams of hideously abusive language? If so, how do you choose which one? I think this commandment actually needs to be less specific. Updated: Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason.
6	Thou shall not murder. Somewhat hard to argue with this one. And yet, what with all the killings in the name of religious ideals, it seems like some people still can't quite get the hand of it. Some people write it as 'Thou shall not kill'. Still, same lack of understanding. Perhaps it doesn't count as killing or murdering if it's someone who's not part of your religion? Well, we can't have that these days, the streets would literally be filled with blood, and many other gristly, hairy, horrible bits, no doubt. No, this commandment should be made more encompassing so that nobody has a get-out clause or a way of interpreting it so as to give some ambiguity. Also, it could take into account the rise of technology, seamlessly melding with another set of established rules. Updated: Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm
7	Thou shall not commit adultery. Again, one that seems perfectly reasonable in isolation. Did you promise to marry and stay with someone forever? Yes? Do you want to have sex with other people as well? Yes? Well, don't! That's cruel and rather gittish. But once again people can interpret this in rather worrying ways. By specifying adultery, it's possibly implied that other forms of negative sexual behaviour are fine. Technically, rape is not adultery if you're not married, so it's ok? No, of course it's not. But it's not specified. And we all know what some priests (self-proclaimed unmarried, chaste men) get up to with children under their care. So although I agree with the point of this one, lets enhance it so it applies to, you know, everyone. Updated: Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so
8	Thou shall not steal. Yup, can't argue that. Might benefit from a bit of clarifying to encompass modern definitions of 'stealing' though. Updated: Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it.
9	Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. I think this one is about lying about your neighbour, and neighbour being a catch-all term for 'someone else who categorically isn't you'. So basically, don't tell lies about other people. I can get on board with that. Seems to be a nasty habit of politicians and lobbying groups the world over. It boils down to people wanting something to happen (or not happen) and being unable to achieve this without removing or discrediting someone who is preventing this thing from happening (or causing it), so they shift blame or cast discrediting aspersions like a bunch of dicks. This sort of behaviour is pathetic and offensive, but also insidious and ingrained in many systems in society, so should be covered by a more sweary commandment to emphasise the point. Updated: Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat
10	Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's. Although an essentially well-meant commandment, it's not exactly practical any more. Although it's probably spiritually beneficial to not want things other people have, and to be happy with what you've got an look for some peace in that, if everyone stuck to this rule there's a really good chance that our capitalist economy will collapse. It's still getting itself together after that last time that nearly happened, it's in no fit state to risk it again. People wanting things they don't have is normal and human, and somewhat to be encouraged as it encourages them to work harder. It's the people who just want things for no other reason than greed or status, that's not good or helpful to anyone. Especially when, as is the case worryingly often, they are in charge of banks; or, in several cases, countries. And I also don't like the way that wives and servant are bundled in with inanimate objects and pack animals. That can't be good for the people involved. Updated: Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts') So there we are, here are the 10 commandments, updated for modern times. Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so. Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube) Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it. Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts') There you go. Feel free to read, ignore and trust your own better judgement immediately. And yes, I did get a lot of these commandments from The Simpsons. So don't go trusting my theology on this or anything related. Just so you know. P.S. See comments for corrections of my (no doubt numerous) mistakes and misinterpretations. It's the Bible, baby! Happens to the best of us (a group to which I can only aspire to) Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk Twitter: @garwboy

TAM London Blog: No. 8 - Kirby your activism

(2.30 pm, 16^th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

Hello again. Another massive break between blog reports about TAM London speakers where there was no actual break between the talks themselves. I feel like I'm introducing an element of discontinuity where there was none. In a way, this makes me like a very very low-key Time Lord. Interestingly, I live within a few minutes walk of a number of Doctor Who locations, and the official Doctor Who exhibition is in the cinema/restaurant complex down the road. You should go there some time, it's actually much smaller than it looks from the outside. It's a bit like and anti-TARDIS, in a way.

Anyway, back to the talks.

We were first treated to a quick talk by Karen James, who told us all about the ongoing Beagle project. It's a very inspirational project, which you can read all about in the links I just put down. Basically, it's a project to rebuild the famous Beagle, the ship that carried Charles Darwin across the world, and re-make the original journey, during which he invented evolution. I've always loved the way that, before Darwin, the world was only 6000 years old and everything that existed had always been that way and dinosaur bones were put there as a joke by a deity who, despite having infinite knowledge, infinite space and infinite power with which to put these things to good use, clearly has a low boredom threshold so amuses himself by burying the remains of monsters for the sole purpose of confusing some of his more curious apes.

Flippancy aside, it's a wonderful project and quite inspiring when you think about it. There was talk about an incident where an astronaut on the International Space Station voluntarily got involved and ended up speaking to a group of Brazilian School children. That's either an incredible account of the inspirational actions that people do in order to promote and further the wonder of Science, or the absolute mother of all wrong numbers. Either way is cool for me.

It's a great scheme, and I do think it's worth the time and effort that's being put into it. Although Karen did say that they were needing a £100,000 donation to complete all their aims. I genuinely expected the hat to be passed around at this point. It's a ridiculous sum to ask people to cough up at a moments notice, but then I was persistently surprised by how many people were able/willing to put up the £200+ entry fee for the conference. It was amazing that so many people were at the meeting, to be honest. Maybe that's why it's called that?

(Just a note, I also tweeted during the talk that I was surprised that the Beagle was docking in Pembrokeshire, seeing as they don't have evolution there. This was of course a stupid joke, as we all know that Pembrokeshire has lots of evolution; the place is riddled with Neanderthals)

The next talk was by Paula Kirby. This was one of the best talks, as far as I'm concerned, because it was simultaneously baffling, amusing and terrifying. It was essentially a run-down of the actions, aims and views of the UK Christian Party. They are, in the loosest sense of the word, a political party that wants to, um, further the values of Christianity in UK society. I say 'um' because, as someone raised in a nominally Christian environment, I don't recognise any of them. They include:

- Opposition to all forms of equality apart from those that favour devout Christians, which sort of undermines the whole concept of 'equality' when you think about it.

- Abolition of CCTV cameras and other forms of social control measures, and replacing them with bands of roving street Pastors (an idea which I actually quite like, as I'd want to see what happens when they have to 'control' a clash of Cardiff and Millwall football fans. Do the spiritually enlightening qualities of the Bible prevent it from causing damage when forcefully inserted into various orifices?)

- A complete crack down on teachers in general as they are somehow linked to the sexual corruption of children.

- Free speech for Christians only. And only 'proper' ones. None of these liberal types, they may as well be sodomising minors while smearing chocolate Koran's over their oiled torsos as far as the Christian party are concerned.

- The promotion of Christian love and compassion via the use of oppression and death (e.g. they support the death penalty and nuclear weapons, which makes sense when you consider that without the death penalty Christianity wouldn't exist, and a mushroom cloud does look slightly like a cross).

I don't really recognise this aspect of Christianity. Presumably it's based on the gospel according to Saint Psychopath. it seems that the Christian party has no chance of being elected, but the fact that they exist at all and seem to be entitled to respect and consideration is still a worrying fact. There was also some discussion of why the majority of Christians don't oppose or resist these despotic bastards, and why Christianity gets an easier ride of it in UK society than other religions. It was very interesting and thought provoking, to the point where I don't want to sully it by making crap jokes about it. Kudos Kirby, an exemplary talk from an interesting person.

The final part of this section, before lunch, was the panel discussion. This was delivered by the holy trinity of the skeptical society (inappropriate religious overtones very much intended), Dr Evan Harris, David Allen Green (a.k.a. Jack of Kent) and Dr Simon Singh. All the brief introductory talks they did were very good, but unfortunately I didn't see much of the discussion as I had to run outside and re-charge my iron-age Nokia to continue my twitter stream. It's a shame really, I doubt anyone was actually reading them but seeing as I had a press pass I felt duty bound to continue it. It was quite enjoyable, like the on-line equivalent of a tramp shouting in the street at cars; pointless but strangely cathartic.

I did learn several interesting things though. Dr Evan Harris really doesn't like singing, like he did at the Science is Vital rally (I was there, remember?), but this may have effectively combated the Science cuts. It's like a WMD, only to be used when absolutely necessary. David Allen Green showed us that, although lawyers are widely disliked and regarded as untrustworthy, if they have a Birmingham accent this completely offsets the clichés and makes them likable again.

Simon Singh is possibly one of the most respected and popular people in the scientific community. And rightly so. I'm biased of course, as he actually wanted to speak to me r.e. my Science is Vital talk and to offer me help with my scientific promotions. He also announced the launch of the Nightingale Collaboration, an organisation designed to help coordinate and streamline sceptical activism activities. Read about it, it's well good.

I was outside for this bit though, so missed most of it. Bet it was fun though. Then there was a coffee break. I've been to many conferences all across the country, and there appears to be one rule which unties them all; the coffee is always shit. It does the job though, and if you have to make enough coffee for nearly a thousand people in a very short space of time, quality is bound to suffer.

Unless this was a subtle reminder of how nonsensical homeopathic claims are? Seems a bit unnecessary though, seeing as how everyone there had forked out £200+ to be there. You wouldn't do that if you were still 'undecided', surely? But then maybe that's just me.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

How evil is the Pope? An assessment

For those of you who don’t know, the Pope is currently in the UK. Some people in the UK aren’t happy about this. These people seemingly outnumber those who are pleased that he is here, so it’s weird how the latter group ended up with what they wanted. Perhaps it isn’t so surprising though, as those who protested the Iraq war would point out.

But is it fair? Should the Pope be as maligned as he is? In recent months the image of the Pope in general society seems to have crossed a line, going from a sort of ‘corrupt politician/leader’ to ‘fictional super-villain’. Is this fair though?

In a recent on-line discussion, I mentioned the whole ‘protecting child molesters’ thing the Pope does. An angry Catholic then called me a fool for ‘believing what your told and not looking at the facts’. When I regained consciousness after being hit by such a massive blast of hypocrisy, I decided I would address this ‘concern’ in the only way I know how; scientific analysis. So, just how evil is the Pope? Let’s see how he fares on the villain scale.

POWER HUNGRY:

Every major villain seemingly wants power. It’s uncertain to what extent the Pope wants power because he clearly has power. ‘Pope’ is, in the real world, about as powerful a position as it’s possible to occupy. But obviously, he had to work his way up to this position. I’m not sure how this works with regards to the inner-workings of the Catholic church, but it can’t be particularly easy what with there being so many of them, even if you automatically disqualify all the women. To have climbed to the top the ancient and convoluted of the ancient structure that is the Catholic Church must have taken some considerable drive. And although it seems like he’s on top, many devout Catholics believe the selection of the Pope is made via divine influence. If this is the case then the Pope isn’t quite at the very top yet, and if he is truly power hungry we may yet see him try to dethrone God.

However, it could also be argued that someone with a genuine desire for power would use a medium other than religion, which has seen better days in terms of global dominance and has a pretty poor track record of producing doomsday devices. But this is largely a subjective viewpoint, seeing as it could also be argued for those who are Catholic that the Pope has control over their eternal existence, and the closest runner up to this is whoever controls the process for gaining entry into the USA.

POPESCORE = 7/10

APPEARANCE

Super villains are generally rather arrogant. Where it could be argued that a truly smart villain would perform their evil deeds anonymously so no blame or retribution can ever affect them, what’s the point of being powerful if nobody knows who you are? In order to differentiate themselves from your run-of-the-mill criminal or corrupt bureaucrat, super-villains tend to look or dress rather elaborately. Presumably, the fear and respect your image causes and the subsequent ego gratification this provides offsets the risk of standing out from a mile away (or any distance within the range of a standard sniper rifle).

The Pope, as it happens, is one of the most gaudily attired individuals on earth. With a signature (and massive) hat, more flowing robes than the bridal gown industry and a selection of jewellery that would embarrass even the most self-aggrandising princess, the Pope does indeed look ‘unique’. Points are lost, however, for wearing things which most people would regard as rather feminine. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, unless you’re Catholic, which I’m reliably informed the Pope is. Whether or not he shits in the woods too is, as yet, undetermined.

POPESCORE = 8/10

DECEIT

Super villains are quite prolific liars. This would seem a logical necessity, as an honest super villain would be unlikely to get very far. “Hello, I’m evil. Will you give me all your possessions and obey my commands as I pursue my plans for world domination” is an opening conversational gambit that is unlikely to pass unnoticed at the UN. So your typical super-villain presents an acceptable public facade and says the right things while being a right bastard when no-one important is looking.

The Pope, already being a high-profile powerful public figure, seems to not feel the need for layers of deception in his dealings with people. If anything, he’s refreshingly honest about what he believes. He seems to relish in being abrasive by spouting his archaic viewpoints.

The Pope has, however, tried concealing the truth via the covering up of child molesters, and spread outright lies regarding the effectiveness of condoms in preventing AIDS, but these are very straightforward lies/concealment, the sophistication equivalent of a child breaking a vase and hiding the pieces, then denying it to his mother. Just swap ‘vase’ for ‘the mental and physical well-being of hundreds of children and the lives of millions of innocent people in the third world’

POPESCORE = 5/10

HENCHMEN

Every super villain needs trusted henchmen to carry out their evil deeds or help out with controlling the evil empire. One man cannot do it alone; they just don’t have the time. A trusted henchman is a must for any super villain. The Pope, the lucky beggar, has a number of choices available to him when he needs someone to go and be ignorant or affronted by something on his behalf. Most up to date example at time of writing is Cardinal Kasper, the crazy bastard.

The Pope appears to have gone for quantity over quality with his henchmen though. As far as I’ve seen, none of his Cardinals are particularly identified as a ‘right hand man’ sort of individual, and they all seem to be middle-aged to old men; it seems unlikely that the Pope could rely on any of them to give James Bond a good pasting if it came down to it.

POPESCORE = 6/10

MINIONS

Every super villain needs disposable minions in order to exact their will on the masses who may not really want to obey the instructions of a diabolical madman. Minions are needed in order to combat any groups which actively resist the plans of a villain. They means they are likely to take heavy losses if it comes to actual battle, so need to be loyal to their master but inconsequential enough in the scheme of things so that their demise doesn’t really mean anything to the overall plans, hence ‘disposable’. It could be said that the Pope could command the obedience of all practicing Catholics, which would certainly give him the advantage of numbers.

However, and this can’t be stressed enough, the vast majority of Catholics are undoubtedly decent, pleasant, well-meaning people who probably wouldn’t have the fervour to oppress others just because the Pope said so. The Swiss guards might count, but they are apparently loyal to anyone who employs them, and how useful are soldiers from a neutral country anyway?

When it comes to minions, the Pope can probably rely on the priests and missionaries around the world. This is still a decent number, but the Pope loses points for showing concern; a real super villain wouldn’t have covered up the deeds of the child molesters, but would have thrown them to the wolves and watched as they were torn apart, cackling all the while.

POPESCORE = 5/10

LAIR

Every super villain needs a lair, or fortress, or hideaway, or base, or just somewhere where they can make evil plans and hoard their ill-gotten gains out of sight of the prying eyes from the world outside. The Pope has the Vatican, which almost fits this description perfectly. Thousands of years old, so giving it a mystique which helps give gravitas and impress the masses; vast and convoluted, housing the mind-boggling wealth accumulated from thousands of years of spreading the word in a way which is NOT AT ALL LIKE PLUNDERING! It’s architecturally impressive and intimidating, with even a perfect set-up for addressing loyal followers. The Vatican is even a country in its own right, so outside influence is minimised.

The Vatican loses points, however, for location. Whereas most super villain lairs are ‘secret’ lairs, the Pope has his smack bang in the middle of the Capital city of a developed nation, one that is a global tourist hotspot to boot. Plus, he makes no effort to keep people out, the closest thing to guards at the gates of the Vatican are the people selling refreshments or catholic souvenirs, and they surely can’t be trusted to ward off those who want a look around.

POPESCORE = 8/10

MAGIC POWERS

Whereas many super villains are just evil men with sufficient resources, in other cases they’re actually imbued with super/magical powers of their own, with which they can combat similarly powered superheroes who would challenge their evil plans. The Pope’s main powers seem to be based on his influence and control of the resources of the Catholic Church, which is nothing to be sniffed at. However, he also has some powers which enter into the ‘magical’. It is believed that the Pope is the representative of God, so has the power of Papal infallibility, which means the Pope never does or says anything wrong with regards to morality and faith. Catholics apparently believe this, non-Catholics look at the evidence and risk dying of laughter at the ridiculousness of this claim.

The Pope also has the power to abolish (and presumably create) metaphysical concepts such as Limbo. This could be said to be an example of the Pope having the power to create and erase entire universes, or just a mad man changing his mind about something that was never there in the first place. The Pope’s magical powers depend on who you are and what you think, and that’s not very powerful when you think about it.

POPESCORE = 3/10

WEALTH AND INFLUENCE

As previously stated, the Pope’s main powers are based on the resources and influence of the Catholic Church. In a surprise twist, even the most overblown of comic super-villains can’t match the might of the Catholic church when it comes to pointless wealth and undisputed influence over others (unless we’re talking sci-fi or fantasy, where super-villains may have multitudes of planets under their control, but it’s all relative, as the equivalent of the Catholic Church in this situation would have 87 galaxies and solid platinum spaceships at their disposal, for no reason at all).

The Pope is clearly one of the most influential people on Earth, but his influence is limited to those who believe in Catholicism; he’s not really that popular with non-Catholics, for many reasons. His access to Wealth is also formidable, but he appears to be satisfied with using it for ‘bling’, rather than constructing some devastating space-laser. We should be grateful for small mercies, I suppose.

POPESCORE = 9/10

TECHNOLOGY

One way in which super villains gain power and influence is through their use of superior technology to oppress or overcome those opposed to them. As previously stated (again) the Pope gets his power form the Catholic Church, an institution which was only ever really at the forefront of technological developments for a few years in the 14/1500’s, in the field of torture implements. This is to be expected for a body which rewards scientific development or curiosity with imprisonment or ridicule and denial

The Pope’s main concession to technology appears to be the Popemobile which is some sort of armoured car/aquarium cross (shout out to my friend Stuart Vale for that one). This does suggest developments for anyone who needs to regularly transport aggressive fish across reasonable distances.

POPESCORE = 2/10

INTELLIGENCE

In order to get to the top and stay ahead of the game, super-villains tend to be smarter than average, or even super-intelligent. From Lex Luthor style scientific/economic genius, to the practical street-smarts of Proposition Joe to the warped view of morality of the Joker, most super villains have the advantage over others in at least one area of mental ability.

In contrast, the Pope seems like an idiot. And this isn’t some mega-cynical ‘anyone who believes in religion is an idiot’ crack, because that’s simply wrong (and quite hack these days), and clearly the Pope has to have some wits about him to rise to the top of a major and ancient institution like he has, but the Pope seems to have trouble grasping simple issues, e.g. ‘Children = liked, Child Molesters = disliked’, or ‘Sex = popular, AIDS = Unpopular’. It may be a pretence or face-saving act, but when the Pope makes statements or does things that will obviously be offensive to vast numbers of people, he and his cardinals seem genuinely shocked and angry that people get offended. This inability to grasp cause and effect is not particularly encouraging in an assessment of mental ability. But as George W. Bush demonstrated, this proves no barrier to having power over millions these days.

POPESCORE = 3/10

TROUBLED PAST

Most super villains don’t start out that way. If nothing else, it’s very difficult to form world-conquering plans when you’re too young to form memories or digest solids. Many super villains can explain their evil and twisted tendencies with some sort of traumatic or disturbing experiences in their past (e.g. Magneto’s time in a concentration camp).

The most commonly known fact about the Pope’s childhood is that he was in the Hitler Youth, which suggests it is likely that he was the traumatic event in the lives of other people (which is very much still the case, arguably). Many Catholics defend this rather worrying aspect of the young Pope’s life by pointing out that registration in the Hitler youth was compulsory at the time, and that we should not judge the Pope for something that those in authority made him do. This is a fair point, and it’s good to see that this traumatic experience has prevented the Pope from ever using overwhelming authority based on intolerance and nonsensical theories to control the lives of others. . . . . what?

POPESCORE = 5/10

SEXY LADY OPERATIVES

Super villains are overwhelmingly male. This makes sense, seeing as self-aggrandising and dominating behaviour tends to be largely testosterone powered. The people who take them on are, invariably, male also. The whole heroes-villains thing is a very macho area. To take advantage of this, a super villain will sometimes employ a beguiling female to charm their enemies and possibly snap their necks once their guard is (or certain garments are) down. This is a questionable strategy as a particularly noble and charming (and unfeasibly well sculpted) hero can entice the female operative into changing sides, but your typical super villain should always have a sexy woman involved in their operations in some capacity, if only to keep the male minions distracted from what they’re actually doing.

At the risk of sounding alarmingly shallow, the Pope fails massively at this aspect of villainy. It is probably due to the Catholic churches utter contempt for women in general that seriously reduces their options when it comes to employing glamorous agents. If the Pope were in a situation where he needed to have a man seduced (how this would come about, I don’t know) then his only options seem to be send a Nun (some men like a challenge, but even the most sex-addicted male bozo would probably realise he’d have better luck elsewhere) or Ann Widdicombe (as seen above, and about whom you can make your own conclusions)

POPESCORE = 1/10

ENEMIES

A villain isn’t really a villain without someone to test themselves against. If nobody objects to what you’re doing, how is that villainy? Every villain needs a nemesis to defy and scheme against. The Pope is head of the Catholic Church, which over its history has amassed a collection of people and things its fundamentally opposed to which would make even the most rabid sociopath feel embarrassed, and since his appointment the Pope appears to be adding to this list at a frightening rate. Thus far, the Catholic Church appears to have as its enemies; Protestants, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox Church, 7^th Day Adventists, Muslims, Hindus, Socialists, Humanists, Atheists, Women, Homosexuals, Journalists, Education, Dan Brown, The British, Liberals, Environmentalists, Darwinism, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, Condoms, contraceptives in general, abortion clinics, ice cream adverts, scientists, secularism and the laws of reality itself.

For sheer belligerence alone, the Pope deserves a round of applause.

POPESCORE = 10/10

FINAL SCORE = 5.54/10

So there you go. The analysis reveals that the Pope can be regarded as a super villain, just not a particularly good one. This is arguably the worst of both worlds, so feel free to mock him all you want.

E-mail: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Dear 'The Pope' (again), from Science (No. 16)

The guy just invites this sort of thing, doesn't he?

"Dear The Pope

Hello, it's me, Science. Did you not get my last letter? I know my tone was a little sarcastic, but then I long ago gave up bothering to sound serious and informed with your sort, it's a wasted effort on my part.

Just to re-cap, I was sort-of telling you off for saying how it's wrong for Gay people to do things like be Gay, and work for you. You set yourself up as the indisputable judge of all that is moral. I even had one of your followers having a go at me for confusing 'natural' and 'divine' law (which was in itself a dubious claim), where it's my job to say what 'is', and it's your job to say what's 'right'. Your way doesn't need evidence, apparently, just an elaborate hat.

I admit I wrote the last letter, and was chuckling to myself about your antics, thinking that you were making a spectacle of yourself. I remember thinking specifically, "he couldn't possibly make himself look any worse"

As you like to claim, I can be wrong. But, dude, seriously?

I admit, I don't like to shout about it when I get a null result or something, but... wow!

I mean, if I was the supposed divine representation of moral perfection, I'd, I don't know, not do certain... things?

Seriously mate, did you not think this was a bad idea? I'd have thought someone who was once in the Hitler Youth would have a little more regard for his public image in this day and age. But again, after my stern talking to on the differences between our responsibilities, I'm willing to listen to an explanation for how this sort of thing is OK by 'divine law' (assuming you have one?).

I mean, using contraception and/or pursuing a consensual, loving relationship with some with the same number of X chromosomes as you, these are things that will condemn you to hell for eternity? Whereas abusing children will get you... access to more children? I'm sorry to say I don't follow the rationale there (I realise asking for the logic behind the actions of you and yours is a bit like asking for the mode of action of homeopathy, but you, like them, usually claim to have one, however farcical).

Were you thinking like one of those old stories, where the child is found to be smoking their fathers cigarettes and is made to smoke several packs to 'teach him a lesson'? I, personally, would have said that the rights and innocence of children outranked disposable indulgences like cigarettes when considered as resources for punishment. But then, I'm not Catholic, and the rights of the individual has never really been something you guys have been bothered about (unless, as previously stated, he, and it's always he, has one of your elaborate hats, in which case any criticism must be condemned ferociously)

I don't approve of the 'make them keep doing it until they get tired of it' method of dissuasion anyway. Be it abuse or cigarettes, a child is going to end up severely damaged for the rest of their life. And it's not even punishment in the traditional sense, as it doesn't pair an action with a directly aversive stimulus. It essentially habituates the person to the stimulus which they previously found rewarding and makes them repeat the action until they lose the pleasurable response it normally elicits. Sex doesn't work this way of course, there's a lot of biological compensators in place to stop that happening. See what happens when you ignore evolution!

But then, what does my opinion matter? I'm only the personification of all human knowledge (that is evidence-derived and well researched)

I mean, I can't see the people in charge of the 'regular' law adopting this method for serious offences (child abuse is, by the way, regarded as very serious in terms of 'normal' law, rather than 'divine' law, which seemingly regards it as a mere bad habit).

And I know I said homosexuality is natural because it keeps occurring despite not having a reproductive element. At the risk of inciting controversy, this same argument could be levelled at Child abuse. I see it as different, in the same way murder is different; it involves severely damaged victims and the self-gratification of a sick individual, not social bonding and understanding. So, remember this, Homosexuality = good, Child abuse = bad. I'd have thought it was a simple system, I can't beleive you've been getting it wrong for so long.

Just to see if this is an isolated incident, perhaps you'd be willing to take a test? Tell me, if one of your priests was found to be one of those serial killers you get in TV dramas, the kind who preys on prostitutes, what would you do? Would you;

a) Punish him by sacking him from the church

b) Punish him by imprisoning him

c) Punish him by equipping him with a fresh knife and locking him in a brothel in a different area?

Now, as far as I'm aware, the correct answer is b). But According to your 'divine law', which is it? Getting the boot seems a bit mild a punishment for mass murder, but I don't know how well you guys pay. Or are you guys in it for the 'fringe benefits'?

When you ask yourself 'what would Jesus do?' how the hell did you come up with this answer.

Thing is, I could provide a lot of rationale and reasoning for why this sort of behaviour occurs. Not as an excuse, but as an explanation, and with the hope of preventing it in future. I can list psychological causes, impetus, disorders, mental instabilities that lead to this sort of thing. But I won't. Because, as you've been so keen to point out in the past, this isn't my place.

So I'm going to sit here, in my place, and watch your place as it falls apart.

Is it OK if I make some popcorn before the next scandal breaks?

Fond regards

Science (BA hons)

P.S. After I was mocked for (deliberately) mistaking you for right-wing fundamentalists in my previous letter, I wrote this entire thing with 'Duelling Banjos' playing in the background. I'll say this for the psycho's, they'd probably string up the child molesters, not supply them with more victims. You're currently ranking below the lunatics. What's that like?"

e-mail: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Scientology, from Science" (No. 13)

Number 13! Unlucky for some, if you believe in that sort of thing. Which I don't of course. And just to prove that I don't, I'm going to respond to some requests and dedicate this letter to a group which is more likely than most to track me down and hack my feet off in my sleep.

(If you're new here, welcome! The previous letters to the Media, Homeopathy, Astrology, Economics, Apple, Advertising, The Pope, Antivaxxers, Teaspoons, Alternative Medicine, Women and the BRAH are there for the perusing, if you have the inclination to view them)

"Dear Scientology

Hello.

You probably don't know me, but I'm the anthropomorphic personification of Science. Are you at least familiar with my work? I made aeroplanes and penicillin, and lasers, and stuff like that. Basically, if it doesn't occur naturally, I did it. And sometimes even if it does, but needs to be discovered and extracted. And even that definition will change, as soon as I can get enough approval for my GM crops. I don't understand why people are so opposed to it. Imagine, tomatoes the size of beach-balls, self peeling bananas, it would be great! Granted, can't rule out the possibility that they'll become self aware and turn against us (the 'Triffid' effect, think Skynet, but with pips).

Where was I again?

Oh yeah. Basically, I'm Science. And you're not. But you seem to be trading on my name. To be honest, I'd rather you didn't. I was told about you recently, and I really had to look you up. I can't say I'm pleased by what I found out.

Originally, going by what I was told, I assumed you were some sort of quazi-philosophical study of science, i.e. me. Any -ology, to me, is the study of something. That was quite an unnerving prospect. I have no objection to being studied (if I did it would be literally the biggest example of hypocrisy in recorded history), but I would worry that you've not told me your studying me. Prolonged study of someone without them knowing is more commonly regarded as 'stalking'. A crime in most places, and I'm not popular or sexy enough to make it OK.

(Admittedly, a lot of anthropologists would probably take issue with this argument. I would clarify my position, but seeing as my first assumption as to what you were about was utterly wrong, it seems meaningless)

Someone then told me that you were actually a Religion. Not a cult, apparently, you hate being described as a cult. I can't really see the issue there, it's like insisting you're a chiropractor, NOT an osteopath; either way, you're just being extremely pedantic about what sort of idiot you are.

But a religion with a name like yours led me to believe that you'd be a religion dedicated to science, which (as previously stated) is me. Although I would be flattered by the attention, I would have to thoroughly advise against such a thing, as it would be missing the point entirely. A religion about science? That's like trying to analyse the soul by dissecting the Pope, and that could never happen (the cardinals threw my anatomists out of the state chamber before they could get through his diaphragm).

But after some thorough research, I have discovered that you aren't a religion dedicated to me at all. You are in fact, founded on the writings of a sub-standard novelist who wrote rather crap science-fiction. I can tell it's crap because, unlike with the good stuff, I wasn't consulted on any of it. I usually get to at least proof-read it if the author has any credibility (Philip K Dick used to send me his manuscripts, but after reading his stuff I used to get a terrible migraine and have to lie down in a dark room, so I just let him get on with it in the end. And Dan Brown is actually a spambot that just got wildly out of hand).

What do you understand by the words 'science' and 'fiction'? From what I can tell, you've named yourself after the former but dedicated yourself to the latter. Why not go with 'Fictology'? Why drag me into it, against my will and with no justification for doing so? I've heard you get a lot of your teachings from 'Battlefield Earth'? I hope this isn't true, as that book is utter crap. About 2000 pages filled with poorly written childish bilge. It's ridiculous, basing an entire religion on a long winded, wildly unrealistic book written by someone who's been dead for some time. Like that sort of thing will ever work!

Honestly, for something with a name so similar to mine, you appear to have an alarming absence of awareness of what I'm about. Psychiatry is 'evil', but 'Auditing' is good for you? Making someone tell you their most painful secrets doesn't necessarily make them feel better about them. If anything, you've caused them to relive the painful memory, making it worse, and this is compounded by the fact that an insane cultist knows about it too. (Yes, I said cult this time, be grateful that I was willing to concede that much, it's perilously close to a very similar sounding term that I feel is more appropriate). And if you do think running a current through someone in order to make them feel better is a valid approach, you might want to up the voltage.

I also notice that your stronghold is in Hollywood, the mecca of brainlessness, fiction and the easily deluded. Makes sense I suppose. Have you thought about suing the antivaxxers? They stole your idea of using unhinged celebrities as chief spokespeople. You really should press charges, it'll be very useful to me to have you two fight to the death (and probably quite hilarious). You shouldn't worry about losing, your grip on reality is even more tenuous than theirs, and even if the worst happens your 'thetan' will endure (or soul, or whatever you call it, a unicorn by any other name still wouldn't exist).

I also looked up 'Dianetics'. Seems like a re-hash of some of Freud's ideas. If you are going to appropriate the ideas of some of my more infamous people, you don't have to go with the coke-addled loony with the self-confessed 'issues' regarding his mother. Why not try Galileo, or Kepler? They were more reasonable people, and studied space and stuff. You like that, don't you? You think you're space aliens? You might as well, makes as much sense as anything else.

So to summarize, you're a wannabe religion that's obsessed with money, power and control, that specialises in brainwashing people to conform to your ideals and is based on the ravings of some lunatic who wrote a giant book?

You want to watch yourself mate, you'll be given a most thorough ass-kicking imaginable. And that's not a threat, it's a warning. Nothing to do with me, but Catholicism is a jealous bugger, and he'll take you to the cleaners if you get too cocky.

Either way, cut your nonsense! You've combined the worst aspects of cults, religions, alternative medicine and celebrities, and that can't be good thing. If you had physical form, it would look like a huge Frankenstein's monster put together from bits of serial killers and televangelists that goes around mugging the villagers.

But what do I know, right? I'm just the personification of all human knowledge.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. I do have many, many more things I can complain about regarding what you do and believe, but I'd be here forever if I tried to write them all down. I'd have to put them together in some massive and pointless book, and knowing you you'd only go an found a religion on it. Psycho."

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy