2005-04-19 - 6:33 p.m.

POPE

Cardinal 'Nazinger' Ratzinger has been elected Pope. I won't bother linking to the story, it's not like it's going to be hard for you to find.

They were saying on the news that Rizzo Ratzo, aka Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Kraut, aka the Ratzmeister, aka God's Rottweiler (that's a real one) is a conservative hardliner who opposes modernisation.

They said he's anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

Yes. What a missed opportunity to elect one of those other cardinals, who are all abortion's biggest fans and nuts for a bit of bum-love.

What would be the point of the Catholic Church if it was led by an anti-anti-abortionist or anti-anti-gay?

I'm not anti-abortion or anti-gay, or indeed anti-Catholic, but I am anti-anti-anti-abortion.

You may cancel out two of those antis and assume I am anti-abortion after all, but what I actually mean is that I'm anti the Catholic Church becoming not anti-abortion. Do keep up.

I'm very dubious about the modernise or die philosophy. The Ratzman said last week that it's wrong to believe that there is no absolute truth and warned against being swayed by the trends and fashions. However right or naz- er, wrong his views, I agree with the principle.

The stupidest thing the Britsh Royal Family did was embrace the idea of increased media exposure in the belief that would make them somehow more relevant and in touch. In fact it destroyed their mystique. So now you have a short-attention-span reality TV generation who think that when The Queen dies Charles should step aside and let William by King. Grow up, you chav mongs. That's, not, how, monarchy, works. Overthrow them or live with it.

An institution as gargantuan as the Catholic Church even remotely accepting the idea of contraception, abortion or gayers seems akin to me to the QE2 trying to do a handbrake turn. If it's to evolve, I would think it must do so at an imperceptible, glacial pace.

Let me reiterate, I'm not saying I agree with those principals, I'm talking about the principal of sticking to them.

Yes, but where are the jokes, mousemilk?

POOP

I watched a few minutes of the London m@rathon on the weekend and it happened to be the few minutes where p@ula r@dcliffe had a little break.

They showed her crouching by the side of the road and sort of reaching around, but I thought she just had cramp or something. When she started off again and Steve Cram made some embarrassed comment about bodily functions, I assumed I'd must have just witnessed the first lady of British Athletics having a wazz.

Only when I read the subsequent reports did it dawn on me that she actually done a shit on the street.

And the thing is - I'm disappointed. I'm not disappointed in p@ula's behaviour or the subsequent coverage of the incident, I'm disappointed that I didn't notice the poo coming out of her bumhole. I watched it, and I didn't see anything. And somehow I feel I've missed out.

Let me make it clear, poo is not my bag. Vidoes of women laying cable on glass tables do not figure highly on my Lovefilm wants list. Watching p@ula r@dcliffe squeezing one out is not something I have ever actually been remotely interested in.

But because it happened and I was watching and didn't notice, I somehow felt cheated. Afterwards, I was even on the point, dear reader, of googling p@ula r@dcliffe Shit. Which would actually have returned far more results, I suspect, just after her performance in the Athens Olympics.

Profilage - Previosity - Nextitude