Why do advertisements pit one awful disease against another? Cancer kills - and OK maybe the stats are better for some kinds than others, but that is meaningless if you are the 'one'. Pancreatic cancer affects people I know and care about - not one of them would rather have another kind of cancer. I get what the ad is trying to say, but in my opinion it is done in a very unhelpful way.

Dr Dawn Harper says "Maybe this could be seen as belittling other forms of cancer..."  No maybe about it, in my view...

A good reply from Breast Cancer Care:

'Unless you have experienced it yourself, it’s impossible to fully understand the huge challenge faced by women who every day wake up to the brutal reality of breast cancer. Many are forced to make life-changing decisions about treatment, some are coping with its debilitating side-effects, some are being told they can’t have children. Breast cancer still kills 12,000 women each year and more than 30,000 are today living with a terminal diagnosis.

'It is unhelpful to pit one cancer against another. Most of us know someone who has been affected by this dreadful, life threatening disease and know the impact it can have on those affected and their loved ones. We all need to do more to raise awareness of signs and symptoms of many cancers and the importance of early diagnosis.

'Anyone concerned about breast cancer should call our free Helpline 0808 800 6000.'

An email landed from a minister friend I first met whilst in Dibley, wanting to ask me about some stuff up here.  It transpired that she is part of a group almost exactly mirroring a group I serve up here.  So is that why Sophia sent us in opposite directions?!  Hmm...

My odd philosophy - God speaks in things that make you go 'hmmm...'

When I was preparing my sermon on John 4 for the WPCU pulpit swap, I found myself making links back to John 1 (which I'd preached on the week before) and John 3 and John 9, inspired by the comnmentaries I'd used, as well as echoes of the John 1 sermon I'd just delivered at the Gathering Place.  So imagine my joy when today I looked at the lectionary gospel passages for Lent and they include... John 3, John 4, John 9 and John 11, each of which is fantastic.

I now have a Lent outline based on encounters with Jesus.

I am happy for many reasons, not least that after an in depth study of Matthew 5 (which I am loving) it will be nice to take a different tack...

Lent gives an opportunity to try something a little different, so just maybe I will!

When writing my sermons, I always reckon that preaching is about 100 words per minute, wpm.  This allows for lighthouse sweeps of the congregation, pauses and a bit of space for asides.  The organiser of the confernece I am due to speak at has stressed over and over that 'the average human speaks at around 100 wpm' which contradicts any figure I found on an internet search, so maybe New Zealanders, like those from the south west of England speak especially slowly...?

My conference paper, after hefty pruning and editing is now roughly 3200 words - which would be 32 minutes on the 100wpm basis.  Last night I tried reading it aloud  ~24 minutes according to my clock: gosh, that seemed rather fast at about 130wpm.  So today I tried again and got ~25 minutes, a little slower but still substantially quicker than suggested.  I then hinted around random programmes on my laptop and found the one that you can use to record - excellet.  So I recorded it and listened back - the pace seemed fine to me (but then I've lived in Glasgow for a few years now!), and at 26 mins/~120 wpm would appear to be in the 'normal' range according to t'internet.

So I am reasonably reassured that I won't do a mega overrun on time, phew.

Plus it means, I suppose, I could probably upload the recording at a future date...