the oven blew up, not with an explosion but with a whimper and a flash. i spent a few hours on the phone to the natwest fraud team..then at the end of the day i spot a brown stain on the toilet floor, and it wasn’t dom perignon. (Poignant ? or pointless?)
what is it about shit? and how does it get everywhere? i have some massive ones from time to time, especially the day after an indian meal, with nan breads and ice cream…a tumultuous mass fills the toilet bowl, morbidly hugging the porcelain. Because i’m distracted, perhaps by my own torpor, i do not see the brown stuff splashing everywhere. it’s crazy that such a thing should happen – it never used to when i was younger…you’d think the shit of man in his fifties would not have the energy to go galivanting off. Of course it’s not really a ‘splash’, more of a ‘flick’. but it does it unawares.
Sometimes it takes me ages to wipe my arse, it’s like the hope of my anus has become a bottomless well of never ending slime. A well of loneliness? No just a well of faeces. How many sheets of toilet paper do i go through? Un, Dau, Tri o’r gloch. Lucky i’m not tight when it comes to arse tissue. But sometimes it seems that the only solution to the brown arse is an entire roll; in which case i devolve to the tap in the wash basin. or maybe the shower. standing in the latter is easier than sticking my bum into the former, but takes longer (you got to disrobe in order to get in the shower).
Duw, i may be tight when it comes to some things, but at least I’m not like Byron down the road – legend has it he he would train his family how to fold individual sheets of toilet paper in order to get maximum usage out of them!
I know it’s disgusting, but what a mysterious phenomenon, shit i mean, the variation in slimyness for a start. some shits are dry and you’re done in one wipe, while others, as i say, go on and on and still there’s a treacle all over your cheeks that just won’t go away…I guess the perception of disgustingness comes from society, and Freud, and the general association of waste with bad stuff. Human shit is somehow more shocking than animal shit…my friend’s wife, who is a vet, lets her pet dog eat the shot of her pet guinea pigs – the dog laps them up, apparently they’re healthy eating if you’re a dog. Whereas human shit is something that vandals leave behind when they break into your house, your chapel, your private space, there’s something shocking, something like desecration about it. the Exorcist – you think of puke and maybe shit, all associated with evil….waste!
Wish i’d appeared on New Faeces…
whish i’d appeared on BGT as a giant worm…very talented creature the worm…the only animal that can defecate a life size replica of itself.
YOUTUBE movie
was told by some film reviewer that i aught to watch Bay Of Blood, directed in the early 70s by Mario Bava…he’s the king of Gialo after all. I can find the film easily on youtube. i watch it and see that parts of it have been pixelated, the bloody bits: the brilliant shot of man (with a mullet) getting a big machete blade down his face, the woman getting her throat slit, as well as any nudity.
what ridiculousness…after all the film is called bay of BLOOD, it’s famous for the deaths, a pre-slasher era slasher is what it is. So why put it on youtube and then censor all those bits?? what a cunt!
The absolute worst piece of censorship i ever saw – and probably will ever see – is in the version of the Queen of Hearts once broadcast on tv channel Talking Pictures. this black and white british horror film is an absolute classic, very chilling film rendition of the story by Pushkin.
I won t go into the details, but as i had seen the full version of this film already – back when i lived in london i saw it at the BFI< or was the MOMI> – i was lucky, in that the two tiny bits that had been censored were so short that, had one not seen the complete version, then they would have gone unnoticed. Which is an odd thing to say as it implies that the two details which were cut out were not essential to the whole. Yes and no. The film would have worked without knowledge of the two short snippets. BUT the two bits were the bits that elevated the film into a horror , a fantasy, a clever ghost story with a twist. I cannot believe the dumb fucker who cut those bits out, the thought of it makes me so angry, the thick lack of intelligence. Was this person forced into cutting these bits by some authoritative body? I can’t see that myself as they weren’t obscene scenes, not nudity or violence of any kind. They were slices of scenes, that had an air of magic about them. was the cunt who chopped them out doing it because he thought it was the right thing to do artistically? because he thought it improved the aesthetic? Bah! fuckin idiot. by cutting the two bits – which i realise i have not as yet described – he cut out the point of the film, in a way…
NCL…Norwegian Cruise Lines…or//?
Nasty Cunts Limited
You must be logged in to post a comment.