Married Again? Well, Not Just Yet!

Saturday. And hectic again. But what do you expect for a Saturday!?

I see the usual nonsense has been posted on the Internet again (thanks for that reference my angel!) but I am inclined not to take too much notice of it, as the site is really minute! Only two people posting on it, bumping up the hits, to attempt to make it look far bigger than what it is! The proof of this is that nobody whatsoever is posting on it (and when you see about 40 hits being ‘registered’ in the space of an hour or so, this really proves it, as you say) and nobody really cares about the bigoted opinions of just two people!. Think the word is really ‘obscurity’; but I suppose anybody is really entitled to post on the Internet.

I got your other enclosures too, by the way, and ‘no’ I’ll ‘be good’ and try to do what you asked me not to!

Sorry everyone, just trying to take in other communications as well whilst trying to write about today.

Well, as I said, its boring old Saturday. So what news?

Nothing really. I finished (or almost finished) the book chapter yesterday, and have included material which I consider to be highly relevant to the recent past. What I mean by that is, I am including past public statements (signed and sealed) which can completely ‘give a lie’ to other such statements being made currently. Its called ‘explain yourself’ in the writing trade, and then just leave people to judge for themselves. I certainly will not be judging anybody, just presenting the evidence. It is not really a question of ‘my version’ of any events, but rather just to present any evidence on the part of the people I might happen to be writing about!

I have had still more response to the Metro article. Couple of people even hinting at ‘marriage’, can you believe it!? Better make the most of it, I suppose, while its still doing its rounds!

Seriously though, I would have to think very seriously before I got married again. (I have not even mentioned that I have been married, though they’ll know now if they happen to be reading this!). Its not as if I am ‘too old’, just that I like my own privacy too much. (With a few exceptions; so no, this doesn’t apply to anyone else).

Went out earlier to settle up a few bits and pieces. My back was giving me a little pain today, but nothing I can’t handle.

Nice to sit down and relax though. Or that may just mean because I’m basically lazy!

Actually, I don’t think that I basically am (at least not mentally), but sometimes ‘physical things’ can get a little on top of you!

My friend from Yorkshire (who I mentioned works in the film industry) phoned me again not long ago to confirm that the regional newspaper up there have now confirmed they are aware of the real position about the illegal release of his private emails. This was highly callous on a certain person’s part as he has never done anything to them, and always shown the people courtesy and respect.

I told him that while I sympathised, I was not really surprised really. There were other instances (nothing to do with himself) where private emails had been published without consent by this sad duo; each time with the intent of causing harm or distress to people.

As an author, I know a little bit about the subject of common sense and ‘equitette’ when publishing things about people without their consent of a personal nature.

I know of a case once, for example, where personal correspondence was made public and I was almost expected to endorse it. I wouldn’t. To the contrary, I got very annoyed and it was subsequently removed. What angered me most was when the culprit boasted to me privately that they had other private correspondence they intended to publish that could ‘ruin the person’s marriage’. I am not a Christian as such, but the person who published this private correspondence purported to be. All I can say is, as an author, I have never done anything like that. Publishing material to retract public untruths is one thing; Publishing material with the prime intent of hurting someone personally, is quite another.

Speaking of writing, I am switching back to my other book tonight. I have found a couple more ghost cases that I found in the archives which I want to included in the next edition of “Dark Journey”. That’s a good way off, but in this profession you often have to work a good way in advance.

Least am stocked up with beer now!

David

 

 

 

  • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

    I have heard again a rumour and accusation that “the cat”” is in bad taste and is an alter ego of David Farrant himself. Better answer it I suppose, or people will think it’s being avoided!

    Actually, I don’t see that the writing styles are even similar (at least not if you stop to compare them), but sometimes ‘suspiscion’ can make people see things where there are none!

    Seriously though, I would have to say that David and I are not the same (and no, this doesn’t only apply to his “earthly status”) although my paw was giving me a little trouble today, but nothing I can’t bear.

    Back to the “heavenly basket” for me!

    • reply David Farrant ,

      I haven’t actually heard that one before Cat! Where was it?

      We are the same person! Good Lord, I’m not sure whether I should be flattered or insulted! (No offence).

      I wouldn’t woory about it too much thought. Paranoid and neutotic people often get things wrong.

      Only recently they thought somebody posting under the name of Tony Robinson (the TV presenter) was a friend of mine from Yorkshire (which he is) and named the poor guy in public as being the person posting as ‘Tony Robinson’!

      My friend wasn’t too pleased and was forced to report the matter.

      Ironically, in the end it turned out that this was a friend of THEIRS! and more ironically still, it turned out to be a woman!

      Talk about being thick!

      Another recent classic being maliciously put around by the same people is that I am ‘impotent’ (if only!).

      Now one of them admits that we slept together of the last day of her stay the first time she was here.

      Well, I can add just a little something to that, only tactfully of course!

      On that last day in the morning we were interupted by the telephone whilst right in the middle of ‘something’ – and it sure as hell wasn’t drinking tea!

      Some people might politely call this ‘having your cake and eating it!

      I would simply call it sheer spite!

      For now,

      David

      • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

        -“I haven’t actually heard that one before Cat! Where was it?”

        One of those silly ninnies whom shares a name with your statue has maliciously put around the idea that I am “in bad taste” (as you had been accused of sacrificing me!) They also accuse YOU of being ME (or the other way around!)

        -“interupted by the telephone whilst right in the middle of ’something’ ”

        I certainly hope you were careful as there are all kinds of ailments which can be spread while doing ‘something’!

        • reply David Farrant ,

          No it was nothing like that, Cat.

          The person at least took pride in her personal appearance and was fussy about hygene in my somewhat shabby flat.

          Other than that, it was only a working relationship – or as the word ‘working’ seems to have been taken out of the context meant; lets just say a ‘platonic’ one. In other words good friends’ (at the time) but no more than that.

          Hope that satisfies your ‘cat curiousity’!

          David

          • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

            Excuse me but the goat has just wandered over with a copy of a comic book in his mouth. I see (through the bite marks) that a female person has been described as “Farrant’s lover” in the introduction. (Drat, now the goat has ate it so I am unable to read the rest!) May you need to clarify so I can put my cat curiosity to rest.

            • reply David Farrant ,

              Well, all I can really say Cat, is that I didn’t write that. The people who published that comic did.

              Where did they get that idea from? I really don’t know.

              I’ve been accused at being peoples’ ‘lovers’ all over the place, and it invariably turns out to be untrue. These claims are often made by friends or associates just trying trying to create some attention at ‘linking’ my name to themselves. In more extreme cases, the odd person ‘turns nasty’ when I have to deny such claims, as you’ve probably seen!

              Yes, I’ve had some friends I’ve slept with in the past (girlfriends I hasten to add!) but what’s wrong with that? You don’t have to love somebody surely to be able to sleep with them. As Ive said, it happens all the time. This is the 21 century – not the 18th!

              Being sexually attracted to somebody is, of course, is another matter. If a man is not (as has already been pointed out) it is sometimes difficult to be able to fulfill the ‘natural act of’ nature, so to speak.

              If you are not physically attracted to another, then anything after (physically at least) just will not work.

              I just do not see why it is so difficult for some people to see this! But it is so.

              David

              • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

                Oh yes I understand that attempting to “get busy” with an ugly female can cause an episode of erectile dysfunction in the male. (Theoretically of course!)

                • reply David Farrant ,

                  THAT was the only problem, Cat!

                  David

                  • reply Columbine ,

                    Not wishing to comment on your personal life David, but relationships generally – the same principle works in reverse – a woman has to fancy a man before she will take matters further. In other words, there has to be a ‘chemistry’ between the prospective partners before any ‘hanky-panky’ can ensue.

                    You are right – people engage in sexy games without being in love, and many do so for different reasons. It is better if a man and woman are in love with each other but it isn’t necessary…but he would have to be a VERY good friend for me to ‘indulge’ without a hint of romance to begin with. I think that yes, it’s true – a degree of ‘fancying’ must enter the proceedings before any sexy business meets with success.

                    Columbine.

                    • reply David Farrant ,

                      That’s all I was saying Columbine really, or trying to say when I said you can have sex without love, but you can have love (true love) without sex – at least (with the latter) sex becomes secondary and not dependent on it.

                      I can only speak for myself, of course, but to me it is of much more important to seek the love first; then the ‘other thing’ will just take its course naturally. If it doesn’t, there is probably either no love involved, or there is no physical attraction.

                      Anyway, as I shall be pointing out later in my main Blog today, I would really prefer to leave this subject. I know it’s a general fact of life, and so in that respect is quite entitled to discussion.

                      The problem is, many people can take such issues personally, even when I was only applying this in general terms.

                      Quite frankly, I think such personalisation is quite funny, but I’d nevertheless prefer to leave this subject now as it seems to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous!

                      For now though,

                      David

                      • reply John Baldry's Cat ,

                        I’m not trying to be a “cat magistrate” but it may be considered harassment when people write blogs with titles using words such as “Farrant” “erectile dysfunction” etc. this combination of phrases gets briefly listed by search engines such as AltaVista and draws “hits” to such sites by people surfing for information about David Farrant. Miaow.

                        • reply Columbine ,

                          ‘I can only speak for myself, of course, but to me it is of much more important to seek the love first; then the ‘other thing’ will just take its course naturally. If it doesn’t, there is probably either no love involved, or there is no physical attraction.’

                          Totally agree with that statement.

                          Yes, the complete subject should be left now..!

                          Columbine.

                          • reply David Farrant ,

                            I can’t really offer any reply to that Columbine, because its exactly what I meant.

                            For now,

                            David

                            Leave a comment