12.10.2009 - 4:12 p.m.

I don't know whether to be hungry or nervous, only four days left until the exam, i plan to do [some] revising in the evenings although i don't want to, i spent the whole weekend not revising, i don't want people to think i'm some kind of photo-memoried savant, for whom life and exams are just a game of recollection of past remembered factoids and who will sit down filled with confidence, i'm aiming at 1% past the pass mark and that'll be fine for me, i've no need to impress anyone

in the meantime i'm still hungry

there's another diary here with some guy who takes pills to reduce his libido, outside of trendy hollywood 'syndromes' i had no idea this was a real thing affecting people. He talked about not being able to sleep and the depression that follows the exercise of libidinous release, i did wonder though if he's just wracked with self loathing over his impure acts, although i'm not discounting some chemical imbalance, but on the information provided, he sounded like a normal person just with a psychological block about the enjoyment of shooting his bolt.

most people know that too long without release leads to sleeplessness and the inability to think straight because of the parade of filth that constantly circles the minds eye, this is easily remedied by taking oneself to hand and beating the tension out of our bodies, or having your loving partner do the same, or any combination of the two. I'm probably a complete pain when in this state as J cannot be left unfondled on my return home after work, dinner is usually put on hiatus until the immediate problem is fixed, the same is reciprocated for my wife and her love of orgasms on public transport, always happy to lend a magic hand.

Maybe those of us who revel in sexual gratification are the lucky ones and the others as in the chap mentioned above are the subset for whom hormones mean sexual misery and unhappiness, rather than try and reduce the libido maybe he should take something to feel happier about banging one out two or three times a day.

i was disappointed by nasa's attempt at blowing up the moon, D-minus, could try harder.

maybe they could use up the nuclear stockpile on earth by shooting at distant asteroids on non-converging trajectories, a carnie stellar shooting range if you will, we can all honk and whoop like mountain hicks as the nightsky is lit by tiny flashes of progressive disarmament. It's all very well dismantling the bombs on earth but then what do you do with hundreds of tonnes of plutonium, you can't bury it or it'll leak into the groundwater the next time there's a minor earthquake, and you can't leave it lying around or someone will set fire to it in grand central station.

but what if there's an accident on lift-off the naysayers will cry, we'll all be irradiated, what if it hits a satellite on the way up, how will i watch my cooking shows ?

no-one in government worried about being irradiated even up to the seventies and eighties, as long as the military got their data, the estimation is that about 2400 nukes have been detonated on the earth's surface, with nearly half of that by the US, and now all of a sudden they're talking about being safe and the public's safety and concerns and waa waa waa. Over the course of the cold war brinkmanship, how many times did the leaders of the countries think "y'know maybe we shouldn't be arming ourselves to the teeth with wonder bombs, what about our safety ?"

i didn't realise that the mutual destruction system described in Doctor Strangelove was actual and squatting all this time in the soviet dark like a malevolent toad made of burnt children, utter bastards, how dare they auto-crisp us all for the sake of petty ideology.

the fucking cheek of it

if i ever meet Andropov (under who's term Deadhand was probably instigated) i'm gonna happy-slap that cunt into the last century