Well, it's Valentine's Day today so tonight I shall be seeing Stella, my lovely girlfriend. She is rather cold at times, but gives me a warm glow - I don't know how she does it, but she gets inside me. She doesn't mean it always but she plays with my mind - you know, makes me feel things about myself that aren't true. Boy do I love being with her - she gives me such ideas. I hold her, cradle her, and we communicate so much through lips - lips are the source of our relationship. Lips and tongue, of course.
Stella likes to be taken, repeatedly. She lets me have her four or five times a night. I struggle to keep up, to be honest and at the end of it I always feel dizzy, dozy, and sometimes a little sad - as if I've spent myself on this love that actually always makes me feel bad the next day.
Well, we're meeting up tonight - in our usual place: the bar. And I will be searching for love in her golden depths. As I do most nights. We might do dinner, but I think she loses her charm if food is involved - just a few bags of crisps - that'll do. And I'll take her home. With her stuck inside my head, to my utter, delighted, bafflement.
Showing posts with label arseing about. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arseing about. Show all posts
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Friday, 16 January 2009
Confession
I've just spent the evening on...FACEBOOK.
Fuck me, I'd rather admit to spending it wanking over porn.
but I wasn't, so I can't.
Fuck me, I'd rather admit to spending it wanking over porn.
but I wasn't, so I can't.
Monday, 25 August 2008
Thursday, 8 May 2008
TTD: An Apology
Over the past few weeks this blog may have inadvertently given the impression that TTD was a fit and strong man. Posts which contained statements such as "I am as fit as fuck" and "TTD is a hunk of human steel" may, perhaps, have inappropriately contributed to readers thinking of TTD as a juggernaut of muscle and a 747 of the rower.
I would like to make it clear that if I have given any such impressions then I have erred; but I would also like to make it clear that is my readers who have been on trial here, not me( c Steve Richards, Indescribablyshite) - references to alcohol, crisps and lying around on my arse should have given intelligent readers enough clues as to the truth.
Which is this. I am a tub of lard.
I say this is in the light of new research evidence, which emerged tonight in the course of TTD attempting to use a new machine in the gym using tricep and abdominal muscles. The research suggests, I am led to believe, that TTD has fuck all muscles above his thighs (even his knob barely functions) and hence is a booze-fuelled fantasist, not an athlete.
If any readers have formed the wrong impression, then I apologise from the depths of my liver.
I would like to make it clear that if I have given any such impressions then I have erred; but I would also like to make it clear that is my readers who have been on trial here, not me( c Steve Richards, Indescribablyshite) - references to alcohol, crisps and lying around on my arse should have given intelligent readers enough clues as to the truth.
Which is this. I am a tub of lard.
I say this is in the light of new research evidence, which emerged tonight in the course of TTD attempting to use a new machine in the gym using tricep and abdominal muscles. The research suggests, I am led to believe, that TTD has fuck all muscles above his thighs (even his knob barely functions) and hence is a booze-fuelled fantasist, not an athlete.
If any readers have formed the wrong impression, then I apologise from the depths of my liver.
Monday, 31 March 2008
England's Victory over New Zealand, by Emmanuel Goldstein
The key thing here is that this victory (note the use of that word again) is designed to make England _appear_ to be a good side. They take an indisputable fact, such as Ryan Sidebottom's 10 wickets in one match, or his hat-trick, and use it to twist people's perceptions of reality such that this equates to England being good. It operates therefore as a synecdoche. Interestingly, _before_ the series, with New Zealand's many injuries and loss of players such as Shane Bond - a geniune paceman, unlike Steve Harmison - the talk was of England winning 3-0. It was only after the disastrous first Test, that the existence of this past was erased and replaced by one in which a determined England team were out to upset the odds. In that sense the ECB have reversed reality in their attempts to make England seem good.
Of course, like all good manipulators of reality, the facts are bare: England _did_ win the series. But if one studies the matches closely, one finds that either or both of the last two tests could easily have been lost at several points. In England cricket, as we know, no-one individual creates the conditions for a Test win, and very few individuals actually play to a high enough standard. Let me elucidate. Andrew Strauss made 177 in the final test. But he was 173* overnight, appearing to be completely uninterested the following morning. His job was done. The same applies to Tim Ambrose in the previous test, and to Ian Bell, whose 110 came when the pressure was off him personally. A quick comparison with the key players in sides such as India or Australia will reveal that they never give up until the match is won. England players are concoting an illusion of effort and of class: we are supposed to be fooled into thinking that this level of play is enough and will do against, say South Africa.
It is plainly the case that it will not.
It is rarely commented on now, for obvious reasons: but in the past (the real one), England players _did_ score over 200 with reasonable regularity. But in the general softening of outlook which set in around 1991 such scores have decreased to a trickle. England _did_ produce successful spin bowlers and they _did_ have consistent pacemen. It is correct that at such times they were also useless, but it is the cynical misrepresentation of how England cricket used to be that enables people to say comfortably in the bars and on the trains: "England are a really good side" when this is not so.
What can be done? Well the leaders of England cricket have no clear ideas beyond the usual setting up of committees and reports. This is designed to foster the illusion of action, and it works, while coincidentally providing worthless jobs. My suggestion is simple: the future lies in the young players. They must be sought, encouraged, retained. A revolution of England cricket will only happen if they can find young players and treat them in the right way, as Australia did in the late 1980s (not that we hear much about this now - the origin of Australia's dominance has been long forgotten,and deliberately so).
This may happen sooner than we expect, if international 20Twenty tournaments explode at the rate they are threatening to. The eternal lure of money will provide more and more spaces for these young players, as their more experienced colleagues decamp to India or South Africa or wherever, until they too succumb, creating the conditions for eternal revolution within England cricket and destroying the power of the management committees and the easily satisfied media for ever.
Of course, like all good manipulators of reality, the facts are bare: England _did_ win the series. But if one studies the matches closely, one finds that either or both of the last two tests could easily have been lost at several points. In England cricket, as we know, no-one individual creates the conditions for a Test win, and very few individuals actually play to a high enough standard. Let me elucidate. Andrew Strauss made 177 in the final test. But he was 173* overnight, appearing to be completely uninterested the following morning. His job was done. The same applies to Tim Ambrose in the previous test, and to Ian Bell, whose 110 came when the pressure was off him personally. A quick comparison with the key players in sides such as India or Australia will reveal that they never give up until the match is won. England players are concoting an illusion of effort and of class: we are supposed to be fooled into thinking that this level of play is enough and will do against, say South Africa.
It is plainly the case that it will not.
It is rarely commented on now, for obvious reasons: but in the past (the real one), England players _did_ score over 200 with reasonable regularity. But in the general softening of outlook which set in around 1991 such scores have decreased to a trickle. England _did_ produce successful spin bowlers and they _did_ have consistent pacemen. It is correct that at such times they were also useless, but it is the cynical misrepresentation of how England cricket used to be that enables people to say comfortably in the bars and on the trains: "England are a really good side" when this is not so.
What can be done? Well the leaders of England cricket have no clear ideas beyond the usual setting up of committees and reports. This is designed to foster the illusion of action, and it works, while coincidentally providing worthless jobs. My suggestion is simple: the future lies in the young players. They must be sought, encouraged, retained. A revolution of England cricket will only happen if they can find young players and treat them in the right way, as Australia did in the late 1980s (not that we hear much about this now - the origin of Australia's dominance has been long forgotten,and deliberately so).
This may happen sooner than we expect, if international 20Twenty tournaments explode at the rate they are threatening to. The eternal lure of money will provide more and more spaces for these young players, as their more experienced colleagues decamp to India or South Africa or wherever, until they too succumb, creating the conditions for eternal revolution within England cricket and destroying the power of the management committees and the easily satisfied media for ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
