The Strategic Response.

Things happen regularly for which we develop a strategic response. A 'Coping Strategy'.  Some take a little thought and planning before we can turn them into an effective habit which 'flows'.  After all, time is money for many. Let me tell you of one.

In the Tavern behind the bar in the P&B is a telephone. People call in, often to talk to someone having a pint. They are easy to deal with - simply call the chap over and hand over the phone. Then I get on with serving Ale. I can be quite busy serving my customers.

But occasionally I get a dreaded Telemarketer.  Four people awaiting their pints; me pulling carefully and topping them nicely with the foamy part; and this interruption. Should I be rude? Should I be attentive in a warm and Christian manner? Or should I have fun?

Heck, even grisly old Knights like to have fun and I don't have a Court Jester handy any more.

To show me how it can be done, a customer took the phone from my hand yesterday evening and answered for me. 

Messing with Telemarketers: That's Going To Cost You...

*ring*

Me: Hello?

Them: Hello sir, I am calling from *(A Market Research Company)*. Would you be willing to take a short study with us?

Me: Hold on a mo....

I handed the phone over.... 

He: Absolutely! We here at Tavern Consulting are always ready to provide opinion based data to our clients!

Them: Um... Ok? Anyway, the survey just takes about 5 minutes and when finished you are entered into a drawing to win a 3 day vacation to Cancun.

He: That will not be needed. Our usual remuneration per our standard service agreement is all that is required. However please be aware that our lowest billable period is one hour and this call will be billed for an hour of service even if only five minutes is used.

Them: No sir, this will only take five minutes not an hour.

He: I understand, however your firm will still be billed the minimum hour as per our services agreements. That comes to $225. How would you like to take care of this today? Do you have billing set up with us already? If so I just need the corporate code for your company.

Them: I don't have that... This only enters you for a trip sir.

He: Ok, that's alright sir. We can set this up on a company credit card for a small fee. Your new total will be $257.98, sir. Go ahead and give me the credit card number sir.

Them: What credit card?! We aren't paying $257 for this!

He: Oh, you are absolutely right sir! I am so sorry! We are talking after 6pm  so you are correct that we are in "premium time". That is correspondingly higher. You total will be $517.54. Thank you for reminding me!

Them: What?! No... No... We can call you after 6pm. The law says we can call until 9pm.

He: Tavern Consulting prides itself on meeting our customers needs 24 hours a day sir, but between 6pm and 6am is premium time. I am ready for that credit card number now sir.

Them: Look, I just have the calls routed to me. I didn't call you, a computer did.

He: Oh, I see.

Them: Yeah, so can we just get to the survey?

He: Yes, of course sir, but I will have to add our auto-dialer fee to the charges. It's due to our consultants time being so valuable that we do this to keep them from having their time wasted. With that fee your new total is $759.99. What are the first four digits of the card you would like us to use, please?

Them: Hold on for my supervisor please.

He: Ok.

He asked for a top-up. This might be in for the long haul. On the other hand..... 

*5 minutes later*

Supervisor: Hello sir, I understand their is a problem?

He: None at all. Your total charges for one hour of premium time consulting with auto-dialer charge and supervisor level respondent fee with credit card processing is $1163.67. Will this be on a MasterCard, Visa, or American Express today?

Supervisor: For what?!

He: Consulting on your survey of course. What method of payment will you be using today?

*click*

Me: Hahahahahah.

I recommend you trying it next time someone calls with a 'survey' or trying to sell you something.

Personally I like to let them say who they are and announce m'self as 'North Thames, Coal and Coke', and try to sell them a few tons of nutty slack.  But the lesson above has got to be worth a try. Just needs a fee list next to the phone as an aide.

Of course one can go to the extent that the infamous Tom Mabe did.  You can look him up yourselves. Suffice to say, you have to be a fine actor to do it right. There are folk who have tried to copy but don't quite pull it off.

Meanwhile here's some ideas. The 'wanting the product' hook can be fun, and when others are 'in on it' you can give them a go too.

Of course, the poor sap trying to sell you something gets his time wasted, which is a bit of a concern to conscience. But not a worry at all when they are trying to cheat you. The Scammers deserve no mercy. Listen to this young woman, who can come and drink in the Tavern anytime, as she experly wraps a scammer around her finger.

Now, if she did come in to the Tavern I might just have to have a few words with her about her bad language and taking God's name in vain. I might even have to put her over my knee.  Instant penance improves the palate.

OK, You have some new ideas. Maybe you can share your own here too.

Pax

Hating Christians

All Religions are NOT the same, despite claims that they are. For example there is only one religion that preaches that we must love our enemies. Christianity. And by the Lord Harry, to use a military phrase, there is a target-rich environment out there to love, for Christians seem to have enemies all over the shop. All other religions either do not give a damn or preach death and destruction to their enemies. Some even go out of their way to make enemies to hate.  Christians top their lists.

And I am not refering to localised areas like the middle east where Christians are being eradicated with extreme violence by Muslims with barely a western political voice being raised in protest, let alone any attempt being made to stop it. 

No, I am thinking more of the marxist-dominated media and polity in the Anglophile countries. True, there are few political voices specifically denigrating Christians out loud as a matter of  National Policy apart say from perhaps that gross chap Obama who seems to praise Muslims and condemn Christians with every other speech. But the rest of the Prime Ministers and Premiers, Presidents and Pissants fall over forwards to present their backsides to the Muslims, abjuring us to 'accept' them, invite them in,  take them in, fund their Mosques and protect their sensibilities from  the rational 'Islamophobia' of western peoples that arises from Islamic behaviour. 

It is happening in the broad and in the particular, and two chaps stood in the bars, one is the US room and one in the Oz room to point out instances. First up was David Limbaugh. 

Demonizing Christianity as a Global Menace

Can you believe anyone even organizes a "white privilege" conference these days — seven years into Barack Obama's presidency? Well, you'd better believe it, and you should also know that at least one of the speakers at this conference is militantly Christophobic. 

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-limbaugh/demonizing-christianity-global-menace 

The 17th annual White Privilege Conference was held in Philadelphia from April 15 to 17. Blake Neff of The Daily Caller attended the conference and reported that "activist and author Paul Kivel" actually claimed that "almost every dysfunction in society, from racism and sexism to global warming and a weak economy, is united by the ideology of 'Christian hegemony.'"

Kivel drivel.

Kivel speaks drivel, as David demonstrates. 

What's the problem, you ask? Well, in the United States, according to Kivel, between 7,000 and 10,000 predominantly white Christian men run the major institutions and "colonize our mind" with Christianity's core ideas, which leads to most of the world's problems.

Kivel identified three particularly severe problems in the modern world that are caused or worsened by Christianity. First are wars in the Middle East, which he says are a result of Christianity's effort to spread Western ideas and influence.

The Bible does direct Christians to spread the "good news" to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). But Christianity started in the Middle East and spread outward from there. By A.D. 100, the Christian church had been established in regions throughout the Mediterranean, largely because of the Apostle Paul's missionary journeys (Acts 16-20) and the evangelism of Peter, John and others.

The Middle East has switched hands countless times throughout history — Romans, Byzantines, Persians, Seljuk Turks, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, Italians and others.

Perhaps Kivel had in mind America's wars with Iraq in the past quarter-century and our effort to plant self-rule in the region. 

Though the wisdom of our nation-building effort can certainly be debated, our involvement is hardly the reason for the age-old conflicts in the Middle East, which, in all likelihood, will continue as long as the world does.

The second problem Kivel attributed to Christianity is the economic destruction it has caused because, wrote Neff, "it provides that God-like 'invisible hand' that supposedly drives market forces within a flawed capitalist system."

Hmmmm. Nowhere else have I seen the 'invisible hand' of the Market, described as God-like. Still, straw men are the favourite men for leftists, especially the 'Patriarchal' straw one. 

It is tragic that the left has successfully rewritten history to demonize capitalism as the source of poverty rather than the great engine of unprecedented prosperity it has been for the United States, the Western world and beyond.

Kivel identified the third problem as Christianity's conflict with "global warming," wrote Neff, "because under Christianity mankind has dominion over the Earth, rather than requiring that humans treat the Earth itself as 'sacred.'" Interestingly, Kivel is lexiconically challenged, as he failed to use the proper terminology for this vexing menace — "climate change."

Hmmmm again. I have not seen even Christian churches speak out against the great AGW con. To the contrary. Another deception. 

The Bible gives man dominion over all other living things (Genesis 1:28), but it does not sanction man's abuse of the environment or other creatures. The Bible does not exhort mankind to deify "Mother Earth" as radical environmentalists do. But it does promote prudent stewardship, from the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) to God's commanding that the fields and vineyards be sown and harvested for six years but left fallow in the seventh year to replenish the soil's nutrients (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:1-7).

Christianity, argued Kivel, also orients us to distinguish between good and evil, which forces us to adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. "There's nothing inherently good or bad about the weather or about people," Kivel insisted.

Here we have to count the lies and attribute them. The Prince of Lies seems a likely candidate for Kivel's drivel. 

I'll concede that though the weather can be a destructive force, it is not capable of good or evil. But yes, the Bible definitely distinguishes between good and evil, and it is quite clear that all men are fallen.

Next, Kivel made the irrational leap that to distinguish between good and evil leads to condemnation of various things as worthy of destruction. From my perspective, however, 

it is not Christians but leftists such as Kivel who are most intolerant toward people and ideas of other religions or secularists.

Finally, Kivel castigated Christianity's "hierarchical" views that place "God over people, men over women, parents over children, (and) white people over people of color," which, in his view, inevitably leads to systems that justify or glorify oppression.

The Bible does — big surprise — place God (the Creator) over man (the creature), and it places parents over their children for the purpose of raising them through their formative years — an idea no doubt shocking to such leftists. 

But it does not teach that there are differences in human dignity; all people (male and female) are created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), which is intrinsically irrespective of race. 

It is rich for Kivel to argue that the Bible glorifies racial oppression when Christians were the leaders in the anti-slavery movement.

Before you dismiss all this as the thinking of a fringe leftist, please consider that it is a logical extension of "progressive" thinking that liberals, especially in the universities and the media, engage in every day. Indeed, it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that leftist race- and gender-baiting, as well as capitalism-bashing, permeate our university curricula throughout the United States. Everything involves identity categories — race, gender, income and the rest. Ironically, the left's obsession over race, gender and the like tends to diminish, rather than promote, human dignity and individuality.

Despite the skewed thinking and propaganda of leftists such as Kivel, Christianity, as abundant evidence demonstrates, has been a force of good in this world and continues to be.

It was Andy Bolt's turn next. He is almost a lone voice trying to determine the difference between truth and lies, clarity and obfusction in a long running and nasty sore that inhabits the Oz political and Social marshland. The Child Abuse Bogyman.

Kivel has big balls. He prefers the Big Lie and goes after every Christian for all the ills of the world. In Oz, the left is after just one, and then spreads the calumny to all the others by association. And it isn't the plethora of 'christians' that they have in the USA, with shades from lily white to the black-hearted businessmen pastors who rook millions from the sentimentally gullible. In Oz we have Catholics and 'other ranks'. In the military there are the 'Catholics' and  the O.Ds, the 'other denominations'.  The Catholics are the Officers.

Andy was almost alone in following objectively the saga of Cardinal Pell, who many will know was the main Catholic Churchman to tackle the scandal of abuse by priests.  Other news reporters took and continue to take a biased and condemnatory stance, even to the point of presenting only one side of the story and tailoring the facts to fit their agenda.

He is particularly incenced by the attitudes of the leftist media which includes our National Broadcaster, the ABC. Not just he this time but Gerard Henderson too. 

Do not trust what Marr and the ABC just said about Pell

I have said it before: 

CARDINAL George Pell is the victim of one of the most vicious witch hunts to disgrace this country. 

It is shameful. Disgusting. Frightening.

The latest appalling example?  Not surprisingly, it’s from David Marr and the ABC.

 http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/do_not_trust_what_marr_and_the_abc_just_said_about_pell/

Gerard Henderson explains: 

Gerard Henderson

""At issue was the question as to whether Cardinal George Pell – when an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne in the late 1980s/early 1990s – had been deceived by the Catholic Education Office (CEO) in Melbourne with respect to the pedophile priest Peter Searson."" 

Pell had given evidence that the Catholic Education Office, which knew of Searson’s history of offending, had kept much of that information from him when he was the auxilliary Bishop in Melbourne. 

He said his boss, Archbishop Frank Little, had also kept information from him while shielding Searson. Little and the Catholic Education Office, incidentally, were hostile to Pell as a conservative.

Note that. Even within the Catholic Church there are 'political' divisions which mirror the secular sphere. Golly, I wonder how that came about !! 

On April 27, four former members of the Catholic Education Office gave evidence - Monsignor Thomas Michael Doyle, Peter Charles Annett, Allan David Dooley and Catherine Agnes Briant.

Henderson continues: 

""It is not surprising that all four did not agree that they had deliberately withheld information about Searson’s sexual crimes from (then) Bishop Pell. This led to the following excited report by David Marr in The Guardian Australia:""

Now four retired executives of the Catholic Education Office have come to the royal commission to describe their shock, surprise, disappointment and anger at Pell’s evidence… 

All four men and women said the same thing: there was no conspiracy to deceive Pell, no understanding to keep the lid on the Searson scandal, and no reason to soft-pedal the ongoing crisis in Doveton. They wanted Searson gone but Pell was no help.

Introducing the ABC PM program on Wednesday, presenter Mark Colvin made the following comment:

Mark Colvin: At the child sexual abuse royal commission, several witnesses have contradicted George Pell’s evidence that he wasn’t briefed on the behaviour of a paedophile priest in the late 1980s and early ‘90s.

Last month, Cardinal Pell testified that he’d been deceived by officials of Melbourne’s Catholic Education Office. He alleged they wanted to cover up concerns about Father Peter Searson. One witness today said the Cardinal was wrong. Another said he was angered by the evidence of Australia’s most senior Catholic…

The reporting by both Mr Marr and Mr Colvin was completely misleading. 

Moreover, neither reported that not one of the four witnesses said that they had informed George Pell at the time about Searson’s crimes with respect to children. 

- Monsignor Doyle said that he “did not remember ever having a discussion or attending any briefings of Bishop Pell concerning Father Searson when he [Pell] was a Regional Bishop” in Melbourne.

- Mr Dooley said he never raised Searson’s sexual offending with (then) Bishop Pell.

- Mr Annett said that he never raised any matter concerning Searson or the Catholic Education Office with (then) Bishop Pell.

- Ms Briant said that she had never met George Pell or attended any meetings at which he was present. Moreover, Ms Briant said that, when employed by the CEO, she was not aware of any allegations of child sexual abuse with respect to Searson in the Doveton parish. 

The most telling part of the proceedings – ignored by David Marr, Mark Colvin and other journalists who reported the proceedings – was the following exchange between Sam Duggan [Pell’s barrister] and Monsignor Doyle (who acknowledged that he and George Pell disagreed on some issues of theology). 

MR DUGGAN: Monsignor, my name is Duggan and I represent Cardinal Pell. Monsignor, as I understand your evidence, your view, from about the mid-1980s, was that Searson should be removed from his parish; is that right?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes, certainly.

MR DUGGAN: And in fact, both you and other personnel at the Catholic Education Office had recommended to the Archbishop [Frank Little] decisive action to remove him?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes.

Colvin, ignoring the evidence.

MR DUGGAN: And notwithstanding those recommendations, for more than a decade nothing was done by Archbishop Little to either remove him or suspend him; is that right?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.

MR DUGGAN: Can I suggest to you that the main problem was that the power to remove resided with one man – do you accept that?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: I accept that, yes.

MR DUGGAN: And unfortunately, it wasn’t you because you would have removed him; is that right?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.

MR DUGGAN: Now, you were still the director of the education office in 1996 when Archbishop Pell took over [from Frank Little]?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.

MR DUGGAN: And you would have been aware that, in the first months of him taking that office, he appointed the Independent Commissioner?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.

MR DUGGAN: And one of the roles of the Independent Commissioner was to investigate complaints of sexual abuse by priests?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct.

MR DUGGAN: And one of the first priests to be referred to the Independent Commissioner was Searson, wasn’t he?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: I would think so, but I couldn’t say that definitely, that I knew that.

MR DUGGAN: Well, do you recall this: Archbishop Pell took over in mid-1996 and by March 1997 Searson had been suspended?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s correct. That’s right.

MR DUGGAN: That was the sort of decisive action, wasn’t it, that you had been waiting a decade to occur?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: That’s right.

MR DUGGAN: So you must have been both pleased and relieved not only for yourself but, more importantly, for the people of Holy Family Doveton, that that action had been taken by Archbishop Pell; is that right?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Mmm, yes.

MR DUGGAN: Now, had Archbishop Pell been the Archbishop of Melbourne in the mid 1980s and you recommended to him, as you did Archbishop Little, that Searson be removed, based on those events, would you agree that Searson would likely have been removed a decade earlier?

MONSIGNOR DOYLE: Yes.

MR DUGGAN: I have no further questions, thank you. 

Now, you would think that any reasonable reporter would draw attention the all of that, for simply transparency's sake. But not the ABC. Not the lefties who are out to destroy the Catholic Cardinal.  Ignore the evidence and paint him as an abuser. 

Omar wrote it better!

Neither Justice Peter McClellan nor Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC queried Monsignor Doyle’s testimony…

None of this evidence was covered by David Marr in The Guardian Australia or Mark Colvin on PM or by other journalists who reported the proceedings. 

This suggests that George Pell is a target of so many journalists not because of what he did or did not do – but.. 

because he is a conservative Catholic of traditional belief.

I apologise to Henderson for lifting so much of his post, but what he reveals is important and the media misreporting needs maximum exposure.

You see, once the ABC is part of a Leftist witch hunt to destroy someone it is almost impossible to get the other side of story through to its massive audience. 

Injustice is done and is almost impossible to remedy, given the size, overwhelming bias and groupthink of the ABC.

Not to mention the massive budget coerced from the taxpayer.

This old Tavern Keeper has had his share of enemies over a long life. I say, 'Father forgive them'  even though I know for a fact that many knew exactly what they were doing. But by crikey it is hard to be forgiving of ones enemies; nevertheless we much start with that intent and work toward it as best we can if we are ever to be Saints.

And, of course, defend ourselves and our reputations.

For a Catholic (and for other Christians too) it is worth asking.... If you were arrested and charged with being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?

Try to answer that soon, because it looks as though it will not be long before you are arrested. 'Tis better to be hanged as a Saint than a sinner. The genocide of Christians in the middle east is not likely to be confined to that wasteland.

Pax. 

The Duck & Dog.

No, its not a new pub. The Tavern has many visitors: It or rather I was until recently host each evening to possums and wallabys;  They have been featured here before. Well, the possums have.

But we have never had a duck.

Other pubs in colder climes have though.  We were told about one just the other day.  But first......

A duck walks into a bar around lunchtime, sits down and orders a beer and a sandwich.The bartender looks at him and says, "By the Lord Harry, a talking duck! What are you doing here?" 

The duck replies, "I'm dry-walling the building across the street. I'll be in town for a few days."

The barman pulled him a pint and made a sandwich.

The next day, the duck walks back into the bar and the bartender says, "Hey duck, I was telling someone about you last night. They're really interested in meeting with you!"

"Is that so?", said the duck.

"There's a travelling circus in town," the bartender explained. "The ringmaster was in here last night and thought you'd be a star attraction for them!"

The duck looked puzzled and says, "Why the heck would a circus need a dry-waller?"

OK, that was a tall tale and very likely quite untrue. But this one isn't.

Duck walks into pub, drinks pint, fights dog, loses. Maintains bow tie. Not a joke

BRITAIN'S booziest duck that became a celebrity for downing pints in his local pub has been seriously injured - in a brawl with a DOG. 

The bird - called Star - is well known for waddling around his favourite inns wearing a bow tie and swigging ale from a glass. 

 http://www.cheddarvalleygazette.co.uk/Duck-walks-pub-drinks-pint-fights-dog-loses/story-27972766-detail/story.html#2

The booze-loving duck and his handler Barrie Hayman are a regular sight in their local taverns - some of which even give Star his own stool.

But Star's drinking days could be over after an altercation with a dog after returning from his favourite watering-hole The Old Courthouse Inn. 

Star came to blows and lost out to pooch Meggie - which also belongs to Star's owner Barrie. 

They had a Mexican stand-off and stared each other out before the hound pounced - leaving the duck with his bottom beak split down the middle.

Barrie, 69, says that .....

the dog tired of the Indian Runner duck's drunken antics and Star finally ''pushed his luck too far''. 

He rushed the beer-loving avian to the vets where he was put on painkillers and said he was praying his beloved duck would make a full recovery. 

Barrie, of Chulmleigh, Devon, said: "Star pushed his luck too far and Meggie snapped - splitting Star's bottom beak right down the middle.

"He gave her a stare, then promptly stood on her back. It was not pretty and not nice. We were so scared we would lose Star." 

Grandfather-of-one Barrie, a former scuba diving instructor in Australia, lives with wife Sue, and plucked Star from the incubator in 2011 when he was just days old. 

As a chick Barrie walked round with Star in his top pocket but after he grew up he developed a taste for real ale and now often goes down to the local with his owner. 

But Barrie said Star's drinking days were almost numbered. 

He said: "He had to be rushed to the vets and go under anaesthetic, which is always risky and could go either way with ducks and other small animals. 

"Thankfully our Star is a tough cookie and it looks like he came out okay, not sure we came out quite as well.

"We had hours and hours of stress and waiting around.The vets are really pleased with his progress. He seems to be bouncing back nicely which is good." 

Barrie was concerned the injury would leave Star with a lisp that would put his performance career in jeopardy - as the duo regularly team up to raise hundreds of pounds for charity with their unique street double act. 

But vets have reassured Barrie that Star should be able to take to the stage again and the injury will not affect the duck's dulcet tones. 

He said: "He just won't leave me and so we go everywhere together. I've not trained him to follow me. He just seems to like it and he is one fantastic duck. 

"He loves to come to the pub, where everyone loves him. He is such a personality and attracts so much attention." 

Hmmmm. We get a few Trolls here occasionally but the Bouncer takes care of them. But we haven't had a duck. Yet. 

But we do have some tall stories.

A duck walks into a bar and asks, "Got any grapes?"

The bartender, confused, tells the duck no. The duck thanks him and leaves.

The next day, the duck returns and asks, "Got any grapes?"

Again, the bartender tells him, "No -- the bar does not serve grapes, has never served grapes and, furthermore, will never serve grapes." The duck thanks him and leaves.

The next day, the duck returns, but before he can say anything, the bartender yells, "Listen, duck! This is a bar! We do not serve grapes! If you ask for grapes again, I will nail your stupid duck beak to the bar!"

The duck is silent for a moment, and then asks, "Got any nails?"

Confused, the bartender says no.

"Good!" says the duck. "Got any grapes?"

Elsewhere, another English Village has been mourning a duck. Funny mob the English.  Masters of a third of the world for a while and now look. Mourning a duck.

A VILLAGE is to hold an official wake and even lower a church flag to half mast – 

following the death of duck.

The bird – called Desmond Drake – had spent 25 years living on the village pond where he was known to bully other males away from the lady ducks.

Desmond had lived in Compton Martin all his life before he was savaged by a fox – leaving only a pile of feathers behind.

A wake, which does not yet have a date, will be held at the village pub, The Ring O'Bells.

Desmond will be the last drake – male duck – of the mill pond, with owner Andrew Griffiths wanting it to return to a more natural state.

Andrew, 68, said: "He will be sadly missed, both for his propensity to consume stale bread and cake, along with his ability to toss upstart young moorhens all over the place.

"He has been a permanent fixture of the pond, for in excess of 25 years, outliving all his contemporaries.

"He has brought much joy and happiness to people of all ages. He will be sadly missed and so can never be replaced.

"We said we would have a wake for the duck.

"When we decide to do it we will drop the flag to half-mast on the church.

"We will all have a drink in the pub.

"He was a very long serving duck and member of the community.

"He became family, he became a village icon.

"There was even a little society, the blood of the duck, and we would drink whiskey with a duck egg in.

"Lots of people have been giving their condolences since his death."

There was no word about the fox. 

Drink up.

Pax.

Your Transgender Reality

The good professor of yesterday's conversations had little to say about Transgendered people. Their reality could well do with some scientific examination and perhaps a mathematical model or two.  Fortunately we had another Prof in today with a less 'superimposed' view which will without doubt see him pilloried as if he were a space scientist / satellite driver who dared to wear a shirt with naked ladies on't.

My Bouncer was obliged to chide a chap who tried to go into the Ladies, Damsels and Wenches toilet today, instead of the Kings, Knights, Gentlemen, Squires, Yoemen, Farmers and Farmboy's one. (We have a seperate one for Monks.) We are rather intolerant of that in the Tavern. The squawking drew some chuckles, although I did offer some kind words to the poor soul who was deluded enough to think I would submit to his lunacy. They were wasted of course. Another customer had something to say about that too, but we shall come to him later.  I took the carefully mis-dressed chap to a small room where he could sit in peace and not disturb other customers and sat him down with a dainty tankard of Ale for his ailments.

Smoking prohibited but going into the Ladies loo is OK !!??

The conversation about the incident flowed in the US Room. First the Prof. A medical Prof indeed. Dr McHugh. 

Michael Chapman brought him in and ordered a pint of the best each.

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: 

Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder; 

' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’

(CNSNews.com) --  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual re-assignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

 “This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – 

even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

Still a Woman for all that 

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. 

Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Frankly it is high time the medical establishment weeded its garden. Dr McHugh could make a fine gardener.

But, all that he said, being said, how does the ordinary man and woman in the street deal with the tiny perverse minority that likes to wear the opposite sex's clothes?  Well, first they have to put aside yesterday's Professotr of Non-Reality's views and face the onslaught. Then they have to get some perspective.

How a chap or chapess dresses is one of those odd issues that fashion takes the reins. There have been eras when chaps were rather dandilike, with lace trim, satins and velvets.  Almost ladylike! They had long hair that todays scruffy pop singers and hippies would balk at and even wore long wigs that would gain more votes than Donald Trump's meagre toupee. Not every era was modeled on Prussia! 

In many parts of the world, notably the middle east, it is common for men to wear dresses. Scots wear kilts and the Greek  soldier's 'best' uniform is a sight to behold.

So, if a chap comes into the Tavern wearing a skirt and blouse, and the skirt covers his knees and the blouse is not see-through or showing his lacy, underwired bra, he will get served. His underpants can be by Janet Reager and he can wear a dainty petticoat, I really do not care, so long as he keeps them modestly out of sight.

But should he seek compliments I will give him exactly the measure of some chap strutting his best suit. That is, not even a mention other than, "going to a 'do' later?".  Ladies are treated differently. False ladies are not. Immodest ladies get to chat with the Bouncer too.

And there are female to male transgenders too. Sometimes that is overlooked. There are far more women walking around dressed like men than men dressed like women. Does anyone have conniptions? All of the recent arguement and angst has been about perverts in the ladies rooms, but what about the laddies'? A perverted man is unwelcome in the toilets and changing rooms with someone's wife or daughter, but it is ok, it seems if he is in the Gents' with your son or brother. Hmmmm. There is more than meets the eye and not a small amount of misandry at work.

She becomes he but it does not become her

Hence, perspective, and compassion where it is due; a heavy hand where it is due too.

Having put that, let us see what others have to say. Mr Wright, for instance. He had a mate along with him too; not that they were in total agreement..

Demanding Discourtesy in Courtesy’s Name

Ecreegan [the mate] holds forth an opinion on the courtesy owed to transvestites, transgendered, and transrationals.

Sometimes there’s no polite option. Tell me, what pronoun do I use for a pre-operative male-to-female transexual? “She” is a lie. “He” is considered highly offensive, and “it” is considered beyond the pale. (I try to use names. The new name is not a lie, even if it doesn’t make any sense.)

I very strongly disagree, so much so that I cannot tell if you are making a joke.

When you say the words “considered highly offensive” I cannot imagine anyone having any right to be offended at such a thing, nor any honest man taking such offense seriously.

Highly? Really?

 http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/04/demanding-discourtesy-in-courtesys-name/

To the contrary, it is highly offensive even to assert that an honest man should lie like a dog, a lie no one believes and no one can believe, merely to please the arbitrary whims of some petty tyrant trying to demean your soul and rob you of dignity.

The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsehwipping.

A man who cuts off his penis and has false breasts implanted is not changing his sex, that is, his biological reality, but is attempting to change his social role: he is a man who wants to be treated with the honors [sic] and titles of a wife and mother. 

He also suffers from profound mental illness, so much so that he cuts off parts of his body.

But since the pronoun deals with the sex and not with social roles, he has no right to be offended if he is a “he”.

Saying a he is a “he” is not what offends.

The political correction officer is playing a social dominance game with you.

He is making himself to be offended with you so that you will obey him.

He uses your desire to avoid offending him as a tool to establish social roles. You are supposed to assume the role as the inferior, the lower order, the ignorant, the follower, the benighted. He assumes the role as the superior, the higher order, the wiseman, the leader, the enlightened.

Of course he is offended and most deeply so!

He is offended at your insubordination. 

You are an uppity niggra. If the lower orders shoot off their mouths and starting thinking for themselves, why, there will be rebellion among the proles and slaves. So shut up.

He is not offended at your lack of courtesy. 

That is risible.

No politically correct person has ever displayed the courtesy of a swine since the beginning of the world: they neither doff their caps to ladies, nor ask if you need any comfort, nor listen to your point of view, nor salute you will courteous greetings, nor say “sir” and “ma’am” and “miss” and “missus” like anyone not raised in a barn would do.

Indeed, they go out of their way to cheat these forms of address, and will call God by the pronoun “She” and call the year “CE” just to see how often they can offend and insult Christians without being slapped in the mouth.

I have never known one not to use four letter crudities or to encouraging others to do so. Even their most grave politicians in public swear in a fashion former generations, who had a right view of the dignity of man, would never have had allowed.

No doubt the politically correct lunatics you’ve met really act vexed and hostile if you call Bruce Jenner “he” as logic, love of truth, common sense, common decency and good grammar demand, but you are utterly insane if you consider their insanity to be legitimate.

If I have a bit of paper I claim is the title deed to the Moon and I say by right you owe me money for getting light from my moon without paying me, my title deed has no legal force or effect, because, despite my claim, I have no legal right to moonlight. In reality, by international treaty, no man owns the moon and, by logic, no one can own the moonlight, since it is a free good.

Likewise here: if a man grows vexed and irate, and wets his pants and shrieks like a loon and rolls on the ground in a pool of his own spleenish vomit because you will not call a crazy person who cuts off his dick and dresses in girly clothing a “she”, his vexation is a sign of his witlessness, not a sign of his due righteous indignation. It is as phony as the alleged title deed to the moon. Even if I believe I own the moon with my whole heart, as strong as I can make myself believe what I want to believe, I am outside my rights, and my claim on you for money is invalid.

So here. A man has no right to demand you pretend him a woman, no matter how badly he wants it.

He has no right to be vexed if you do not give what he has no right to ask.

A man can act offended at anything he wishes, but if he has no right to be offended, the act is just an act. 

He should be chided, silenced, and, if he will not conform to the demands of polite society, be removed from it. If he grows violent, he should be confined, or killed. That is what you owe him.

He is the one being very offensive, not you.

Hmmmm. I draw the line before 'killed' but undestand all of the points. I prefer compassion where it is due and a civilised response where that is due too. Hence my sitting the chap in his attire in a small room away from harm, with a pint of Grace that may well relieve his ailment. 

Remember, the first Fundemental question: "What ails thee?"

Pain can discombobulate people. Someone afflicted with a 'transgender' feeling needs sympathy right up to the point they become demanding and oppressive.


As for those who would deceive children, infect them with nonsense, pervert them in schools, well, those people should be removed to a jail cell. 

Or get to know a Millstone necklace.

The older 'children' have been thoroughly perverted such that they refuse to acknowledge reality. Not 'can't' but flat refuse. They are so conformist to the perversions they have been taught.

Don't believe me? See here.....

There are Professors of Cant as well as Kant.

Pax.