BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 01:43 PM

"It did not make you believe either.2

.. well from what I can remember..
it wasn't until well into my teens
I became sufficiently equipped with the intellectual tools and confidence
to question and counteract years of institutionalized christian indoctrination...

Same more or less with my close group of school friends.

It's a different story for my wife
[who I met when we were students on the same Polytechnic humanities subjects degree]

She's the product of a evangelical religious upbring in a tiny isolated village.
her brother is even a full time evangelical minister.

I'm an agnostic - she still has remnants of belief and fear of the devil...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:10 PM

MGM - Best explanation I have seen is...

We don't know. Something went bang, that is a provable fact. What went bang is not known. I favour the energy peak (or trough) but there is no proof. It may have been god who went bang. We cannot prove or disprove it. But if it was, his work was done billions of years ago :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:17 PM

Michael, if I tell you we still don't know, do you absolutely promise not to say that it didn't happen, then? We are within billionths of a second of the event out of over 13 billion years. We may get there, we may not, but at least science is honest enough to admit that we're not quite there. The steady state theory is adhered to these days only by the ornery, and creationism not only relies on having faith instead of evidence :-) but also on denying all the evidence we do have for the Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 02:22 PM

Brain washing..

I often wonder, if my brothers, father, uncles and grandfather hadn't been Sheffield Wednesday fans, would I have been a season ticket holder myself from the age of six?

Same with religion for others., although obviously not as satisfying as something important and relevant like football. It must have pissed off and confused the missionaries to find that despite God, Jesus etc being their big cheese and blamed for creating etc, that the local natives had never heard of him.

I am lucky in that my parents taught me how to think not what to think. I like to think I passed that on to my boys.

The main problem with religion, and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then, mine being that Rachel Riley off Countdown, is those too shallow or intelligent to see it as faith and look for literal aspects.*

A bit like Michael looking for a literal big bang. Presumably looks for loose change flying around the screen when watching bongo flicks and it comes to the money shot...



*I've never seen Countdown with her on it, but have watched Eight out of Ten Cats do Countdown.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:06 PM

and let's face it everybody needs a fantasy now and then

It's a funny thing, Musket, but if you compare the bible and the silmarilion they are spookily silmilar. Silmarilion may be better written but that is just my preference. Concepts are identical. I wonder if, in a couple of thousand years, someone with no knowledge of either, would like to confirm which people believed?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:08 PM

Anyway, no answer so far. Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith? Pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:17 PM

I count my self fortunate that
even though my parents were 'only' menial manual factory worker and cleaner / care worker,
they were idealistic progressive post war young socialists.

They deliberately abstained from having me and sibling christened,
wanting us to make our own minds up when we were old enough.

So the reality was a total absence of any religion at home
to reinforce all the dogma encountered at school
and whatever other reactionary influences outside our house.

What still amuses me - at start of the new term,
4th year class after our grammar was converted to a comprehensive.

The form teacher called us all up to front of the class one at a time
to fill in registration forms.

He was middle aged, ex army, fought in the war [metal work teacher if I remember correct]

He noticed I hadn't filled in the required box for religion.

I answered "Sir, my mum and dad didn't have me christened"

His indignant reply "Nonsense boy, you're Church of England - now go back to your desk"

as he ticked the box for me.....

If he's still alive I bet he'd be a Jeremy Clarkson fan....😜

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 03:39 PM

Lovely story, PFR. Reminds me of my late mate Adam, rest his soul. Was old enough to do national service in the RAF. He well remembered the drill on a Sunday. Fall out, Jews, Roman Catholics and other denominations... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:15 PM

well#, while admitting to a faith position, I believe it is supported by observations and daily experience over all time. to say that everything with a beginning needs a cause, accords with that overwhelming simple science of observation and experience. that is probably as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !. lion asks what went bang ?. there was absolutely nothing to go bang. surely we are left with either a theological miracle, or secular miracles. and as great creationist scientists in past time have demonstrated, such a position spurred on science, rather than hindered it. by contrast the evolution belief has oftimes hindered it by its slavish devotion to darwinist dogma. steve asserts masses of evidence for his faith, but don't share it with us, other than yet more assertions. I reckon it is steve, and his fellow believers who deny the evidence for creation, and against evolutionism, but of course they can just put it down to further research needed !
and btw, #, there are some things God cannot do. one is , as scripture says is lie. it is also no reflection on his being and attributes that he could not construct a puzzle he could not solve...quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:27 PM

Pete, is English your first language? If so, can you answer me a simple question that Keith seems to have problems with please? What bits of the bible are true?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:28 PM

It is not possible to discuss anything constructively with someone who can post that drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 04:59 PM

Not sure that PFR's teacher would be a Jeremy Clarkson fan. I recall a magazine article where he said he was irreligious, a stance I too am comfortable with. Just like being aphilatelist or aincestous.

What's all this bollocks about God not being able to lie? Why do you put that pete?

After all, if what I heard is true, he loves us. The lie being the work I have been involved with at a children's hospice. If he was more than your vivid imagination, he'd be a bigger bastard than Hitler for that one. At least Hitler never claimed to love his victims.

Mind you, at least you aren't a hypocrit. Keith picks and chooses between the absurd and more benign aspects of the Bible and still claims to be a Christian. Boutique Christians are a laughing stock because they at least show enough intelligence to realise the absurdity of it all. They just use it to look smug.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 06:09 PM

i'm sorry dave, I thought you were baiting keith with that question. a simple question you say ?. you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith, as you say you already do. now why would I suspect you were trying to trick me ?. perhaps I should be more charitable and at least answer the specifics you asked keith. yes I do believe that Christ came from God, died for us, that all who believe and repent may be saved, rose from the dead, and ascended after, to the Father. no problem for God since he is he who spoke creation into being.....but then you knew what I believe, didn't you. and as keith is not addressing me, I don't intend to get involved about whether a pick and choose bible belief is valid or not, with him. he is right though that neither of us would burn the other.
steve, the former science teacher,....that the best you can do.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 07:30 PM

Is that the best I can do? Let's see. You appear to expect a sane and sensible person to address this gem:
contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, from which from nowhere was endued with information content and life !.
Then yes, it's the best I can do. And if that's the best you can do, I feel bloody sorry for you. It's tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 15 - 08:32 PM

that all who believe and repent may be saved

Did he say anything about those who neither believe nor repent but who still manage to lead good lives? What if there are people who believe, but who rob and cheat people all their lives, abandon their wife and kids, drive drunk, etc., but then repent quite late on, sort of thing...do they get more of a leg up than the non-believing, non-repenting good guys? Have you thought that through? Has God thought that through?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM

Repentance late in life. One way of hedging your bets apparently. A bit like taking a tablet for the hangover of last night's drinking session.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:23 AM

No tricks, Pete. So, you believe all of it I gather. I think that is fair enough. If you believe all of it then, yes, anything is possible. I don't believe any of it, which is also fair enough. As long as you don't try to force your beliefs on other people we have no quarrel. Why would you say you don't appear to be wanting to understand the Christian faith though when I have already explained that I do understand it? What I am trying to understand is what bits of the bible people believe to be fact and which bits are fiction. If it is permissible to pick and chose bits then which bits do you pick and chose and why?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:03 AM

Dave makes the important point of understanding doesn't mean accepting.

A lot of people cannot make this distinction. Presumably "to know him is to love him " has sinister overtones after all?

I'll never see Maddy Prior in the same light again 😥

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Shimrod (Gas Pedant)
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

" ... as far as a first cause can be demonstrated. it is at least logical to say that if there is a creation, and there is, then a creator [ who is outside of that space/time/matter creation], is a valid argument. contrast that with the general theory of evolution that says absolutely nothing "went bang" and then contrary to all observational science, gases became matter, ..."

Oh dear!

1. The word "logical" DOES NOT mean "pete's preferred explanation"!

2. Where in the Bible (apparently your only reference book) does it say that God is "outside of that space/time/matter creation"?

3. You're conflating scientific theories concerned with the development of life on this planet (the "general theory of evolution") with scientific theories concerned with the origin of the Universe.

4. I've asked you this a million trillion times (and I've told you not to exaggerate!) but where did God come from (bearing in mind that you've probably made up the bit about Him being "outside of that space/time/matter creation") and where did he get his materials from?

5. And you STILL haven't learned that gas IS a form of matter, have you, pete!!!! Extraordinary!!! You, a complete scientific ignoramus, could boil some ordinary tap water to make steam (a gas), condense the steam to turn it back into water (a liquid) and freeze that water to make ice (a solid): gases, liquids and solids - all forms of matter! If God created you, he really missed quite a few bits off, didn't he, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:53 AM

Which bits of the bible are true and which are not. Keith?

There is no way of knowing silly.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:00 AM

Then it's very much like your take on history, Keith. The problem with not knowing which bits are true is that you can't trust a single word of any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:07 AM

I will assume you are not being purposely thick, Keith, and it was my poor phrasing.

Which bits do YOU believe are true and which are not.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:12 AM

No.
On History, I believe the historians if there is a consensus.
Their findings are based on research subjected to the scrutiny of rivals.

On the history of WW1 I expressed views on which there is a consensus of historians, and has been for about twenty years.
Reading their work is how I came to hold those views.

You and a few others ridiculed me for that.
You Steve even made a little joke about the historians needing to "grow up."
You imagined that you knew more about that history than the historians whose life work it is.
Such arrogance and hubris!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:20 AM

Dave, a few weeks ago you acknowledged that you only came on to a thread to mock and ridicule me, and told me to "live with it."

You now ask me to lay bare to you my deepest faith and beliefs.
I choose to decline, respectfully.

The teachings of the Anglican Church are available for scrutiny.
On these issues they do not differ from Catholicism, Methodism and most others.
My beliefs are broadly in line with the teachings of the Anglican Church of which I am a member.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:33 AM

I did indeed, Keith, and on that thread you deserved everything you got. You are now going the same way on this thread by twisting and distorting what people say. I am not asking you to lay bare your deepest anything. I am asking you which bits of the bible you believe are true and which bits are made up shit. A couple of examples will be fine. Yes, the teachings of the Anglican church are as you say. But your beliefs are 'broadly in line with' so they do not concur exactly. How are we to know which bits you chose to follow and which bits you disagree with unless you tell us?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:48 AM

If I recall accurately, the joke Keith is referring to went something like:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Do note "Keith's" there. The joke was entirely on you, Keith, no-one else. Keith is so bad at getting jokes that I sometimes think he must be a yank. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 04:50 AM

He's certainly yanking something...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:16 AM

I find it astonishing that Keith is prepared to rubbish every WW1 Historian who wrote prior to 1995 but is quite happy to believe a book written up to 3,500 years ago.

Even the most recent of the New Testaments are almost 2,000 years old and were written decades, if not a century, after the demise of all the people who were supposed to be the "main players"

As for his comment that "no-one is told to believe in him" I have seldom heard such tosh. Yet another example of sheer ignorance and lack of basic understanding

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:21 AM

I promise that I wouldn't dream of saying "it didn't happen", Steve.

Whatever "it" may have been...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:23 AM

Will this do

B A N G

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:32 AM

I have just solved a couple of mysteries. Once upon a time an all powerful being got so full of shit he went bang and the universe was created! So there WAS a creator. Shame he couldn't stick around.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 06:13 AM

Let's just enjoy the quest, Michael, and luxuriate in the thought that science, at least, tries not to indulge in the intellectual copouts that are the bedrock of all religion. What on earth would God think of our refusing to use the mighty brains he endowed us with?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:24 AM

OK, let's --

Our Big Bang which art in ∞ville...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 07:50 AM

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

Musket said, "those historians should know better."

The views I put forward are a consensus of the current generation of historians.
In two years none of you were able to find a single one who was not one of "keith's historians."

You people mocked and ridiculed their findings and imagine you know better than them.

You mock Pete for not believing the scientists on science, but you people refuse to believe the historians on history.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:24 AM

"You people"

A bit desperate if you don't mind me saying so.

The historians you refer to are expressing views based on their take of the known facts. I and anyone else for that matter can read those facts and form different conclusions. It isn't difficult. The main difference between Max Hastings and me is that I was a professional investigator who has a postgraduate qualification in investigative practice and assessing evidence, and a track record in prosecuting successfully.

But if you have a different view given the facts, that's fine.

You don't say that though do you Keith? You say that clever people conclude something so none of us by have the right to contradict them. You mock people for displaying Intelligence and independent opinions.

No wonder you are impressed by dog collars and gilded statues....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 08:51 AM

Here's the confounded joke again:

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's historians!"

"Don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Now here's what Keith thinks my joke said:

Steve, the joke was aimed at "Keith's historians" which is all the current generation.
They should grow up you said.

"They should grow up I said". Well no, I didn't say that or anything like it, did I, Keith? There it is in black and white. Nothing in the joke about telling historians they should grow up, eh, Keith. And you wonder why people vilify you for being inaccurate, unreliable and untruthful. Blimey, I think I feel one of those Guardian misquote moments coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Musket
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:16 AM

Quotes? But Keith always puts "" when quoting, doesn't he?

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

Looks like the poor bugger couldn't even get on the UKIP candidate panel....

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:22 AM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Musket, you chose Hastings, the only one of the historians I quoted who is not a senior professor in a university History Faculty.

Have you yet found a single historian who has written anything in the last twenty years supporting your views?

No.
They should know better, right Musket?
They need to grow up, right Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:25 AM

Except when he states something and tries to claim it was a quote after his little slip has been rumbled.

It was a quote.
I showed it to you proving it was a quote from a UKIP site.
I am not and never have been UKIP.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:28 AM

Ever he the old joke about the lady carrying the pig and the drunk sitting near the gutter?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 11:53 AM

yes steve, repentance and faith are available to all, even late in life. that might be the obviously outwardly sinful, or the prideful, not so obvious impenitent. in theology this is known as saving grace on the part of God. do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:01 PM

.. so providing Hitler managed to squeeze out a quick prayer in his last few minutes
he might actually now be sitting in the lounge bar of Heaven
next to my dear old grandmother
who probably never did a really bad deed in her entire life...???

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:08 PM

.. in which case there might still be hope yet for Jeremy Clarkson in the afterlife...
if he quickly prays every time before getting in a fast car
or smoking a cigarette...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:17 PM

do you want to argue with who you don't believe in ?.

What sort of a daft question is that and how come you only use a capital letter when referring to god rather than at the beginning of sentences?

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:46 PM

.. thinking a bit more...

so if Hitler repented at the last minute, reserving a place on the waiting list for heaven,
then he goes and blows his chances by committing suicide.... ooops !!!

Careful with the fast driving & smoking Clarkson,
there might be a lesson to be learnt there...

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 12:55 PM

Still no response from Professor KAOH re his ignoring a myriad of books written by people who actually took part in WW1 who he has dismissed and his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago.

How strange ..............

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:08 PM

The butt of the joke is "Keith's historians" not "Keith."
They have not grown up, is the point of the joke.

Your twisting and turning on this is risible. I'm inclined to retort that it's my joke and I get to decide what the butt of it is, but I won't. Suffice to say that there is a world of difference between proper historians as a body of personages and Keith's historians as a body of personages. The former represent an august and respectable cadre, the latter a tawdry, hand picked, misrepresented and misquoted unfortunate bunch indeed. Something even mythological about them, really. Gosh, I feel sorry for Geoffrey Wheatcroft. If I have any more jokes I'll likely run them by you first, Keith, in order to get your preliminary take. If there's one thing I can't be doing with it's having to explain jokes. The moment all too quickly passes. Usually.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:29 PM

ok dave, hopefully we are more or less clear on that one !.

shimrod, re your numbered points..
1, of course it is my preference. and you have yours !. and it is perfectly logical, and accords with experience and observation, to say that creation has a creator. granted, that in itself is not proof. your preference has yet to demonstrate logicality, and is contrary to experience and observation.
2, it is inferred by his description as being eternal and spirit. and also by virtue of being creator of heaven and earth.   i think we are agreed that time had a beginning. but God was at the beginning, and began it.
3, I was, I thought following kherkut [not sure of spelling] who did delineate the general theory as encompassing the entire theory. unless it was "grand" rather than "general". either way, seeking to separate is picky at best and evading at better,
4, and I answered you many times. only a few posts up, that I don't believe in a god who needs creating.
5, congratulations, you've scored points there. however, I am sure you knew what I was driving at. indeed ice is a solid, water liquid, and steam a gas . have you witnessed it becoming anything else ? or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else, let alone life, and the information to sustain it ?.
the irony is, that the bible describes water as being Gods starting material in creation.

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM

"water... or do you have a mechanism for it morphing into anything else ?"

errrmmm.......wine".. Jesus the miraculous party dude...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: BBC v. Jeremy Clarkson.
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 01:44 PM

his adhesion to the writings in a book from 3,500 year ago

Sorry, Raggy, but he has got you on that one. He does not believe all of it, only part. What parts he does and does not believe is secret and we can only guess as to what they are. If anyone does guess he can, of course, then say 'no, that is wrong' and no-one will be any the wiser. You've got to hand it to the lad. Got it all covered.

I have learned from a master so I will give it a go myself. Things said about Keith
1. He is a liar.
2. He is a cheat.
3. He is thoroughly despicable.
4. He is from Hertford.
5. He has 2 willies.
6. He pisses champagne.
7. He is a complete tosser.
8. His mother is a hamster.
9. His father smells of elderberries.
10. He can twist the words of anyone to mean anything at will.

Of course, I only believe some of those things, but as my beliefs are deeply founded and personal I cannot possibly let you know which ones...

:D tG