The last time someone struck me as absymally lacking in intelligence was two years ago. The idiotical nineteen year old who thought that climbing out of the window and onto the roof of a moving bus was a cool way to impress the babes. He was, by the way, dead sober at the time.

And now we have another doltish male in his late teens agonising over the television guide in the television room.

"Oh my god, I have finally cracked the code of this television guide. It's American! We have to read it backwards because everyone knows America is twelve hours behind. Why can't the stupid publishers print a different guide each for Australia and America?"

And of course, gently pointing out that it is accurate and has nothing to do with America merely engenders this skeptical look on his face. (The discrepancies are due to daylight savings or the encumberance of being a satellite subscriber, and this is explained in the guide itself on every other page. You merely have to subtract or add a set number of hours from the printed time for the actual time of the programme.) This expression quickly degenerates into a supercilious and derisive stare, tinged with the disbelief that some stupid Chinese girl had dared to contradict his superior intellect.

That last is a logical analysis of his expression, judging from the loutish behaviour he and his friends displayed earlier in the day. I especially detest the little tag of "Suzy" they decided to append to me. Do I vaguely look like a bloody stereotype to you? Or a prostitute? Me in an oversized t-shirt and jeans?

***

And here is a reply to what I wrote here:

"It seems unfair to me that people are judging them simply on the basis on a newsarticle, and the main characters are not present to offer a defense of themselves, if a defense is required at all."

Is it me or is there something wrong with the first half of the statement?

The facts are laid out clearly for anyone to make an informed opinion, even if we ignored the obvious emotional sentiment embedded in the tabloid style news article.

1) He did not tell his wife that he was HIV positive before they were married.

2) They had unprotected sex before the wife found out about his situation.

3) She was unaware of the situation until she realised something was wrong with his constant pill-popping, and had to press him for an explanation.

And if you strip my angry passionate androgynistic tirade of its emotion, I am condemning the act of not protecting his wife.

The rest, I admit, was just pure speculation and an angry outburst.

But I still can't make heads or tails of the fact that I cannot make an informed judgement on what I read in the news. Credit me with some sense please.

By the same logic, if I read that civilians were killed when America invaded Iraq, I cannot believe that they are dead? Yes, we cannot make a conclusive judgement on the actual circumstances that led to their deaths, i.e. did the American soldiers killed them by accident, or did these "civilians" attack the soldiers first, but does this mean I cannot judge that they are dead because there is a war going on?

Oh perhaps he meant that in such a scenario, we do not know for certain if the news article might be falsifying its information.

Okay. That made some sense. I think I just dug myself into a hole here.

I'm too tired, haivng been awake for about 36 hours. All I can think of right now is automated writing. And skulls. I don't know why. Maybe all the talk of death and dying brought it up.

Is it just me or has anyone noticed that I am getting dumber by the minute?