Nick Pope Still Twat &c

I am gutted by the lack of net interest in my last post debunking Nick Pope of "I really don't know that much about UFOs" fame. I have received nearly 0 hits since that post.

Look (as the Rev ARP Blair would say). I don't give a monkey's dangleberry whether any of you think UFOs are a load of cock; maybe I do too. The fact is, it kind of interests me, and Nick Pope making piles of money out of it pisses me off especially given that I debunked the tosser a decade ago.

Graham Salisbury - where are you now? We - I - need your incisively sarcastic (but also drolly dry) sense of humour and knowledge to get rid of this waste of u-bend space.

Anyhoo: wuz're fookin off the poynt like.

I've initiated this post to say this: Simon Barnes of The Times fame is also a twat. Anyone who thinks that 1988 (when Ben Johnson tested positive for drugs) is when sport "lost its innocence" is either ignorant or is a wanker. What does he think that Heysel represented? Or Ibrox 1971, or even Peru 1964? What kind of idiot thinks that a guy with stuff in his veins is the end of sport, when people have been killed because of the club they support?

Also, much as I respect Roger Bannister, only a total fuckwit thinks that 1954 is important because it's when sport became about making the impossible possible, breaking the barriers of the physical, etc,etc.

What the fuck did he think Sherpa Tensing and Edmund Hillary were doing on the top of Everest in 1953? Swapping Association Football trading cards? Jeeee-sus!
What did he think the 1948 Olympics were for? Thrashing your poor pathetic opponent? Or showing that hard competition could co-exist with the ideals of liberal society and indeed were part of them - despite or because of the participation of the totalitarian states - then dragging itself out of the starving ashes?

And what kind of nob thinks that 1966 is important? You might as well ask an Italian fan whether 1934, 1938, 1982 have held Italian football back; or ask a (west) German fan whether winning against the odds in 1954 and 1974 and with the odds in 1990 have held back their sport? What the bloody hell does 1966 mean? Nothing, apart from a flukey world cup win and a lucky win (given the outlook) for Harold Wilson.

At least Wislon lost in 1970 (like England).


Anyway it's all fucked. I know this because all intelligent people have risen to the defence of John Kerry, who reckons that people who fail in school "get stuck in Iraq".

Oh, sorry - you meant Bush? You mean the guy who had a higher grade point average at Yale than you? Him? God, what a fuckwit!*


*This is not meant to be a defence of Bush per se.

I am not Norman Geras,
nor was meant to be;
just a Kamm on the net,
one that will do
to swell the failure of a scene or two.