While I'm here, and as I didn't blog on Monday, which is what I intend to try doing for a while, I should probably try and say what I've been up to this week. Not too much I think.

I've been cooking food a bit. I got bored of pasta with sauce, and I can never be arsed to make stir-fries these days, so I bought a book of simple recipes for one person along with a bowl to put fruit in. We had a bit of an online shopping session, so I made a concerted effort to stock my cupboard with handy ingredients. So far I've had creamy mushrooms on toast, which were staggeringly good, and a spinach and pine-nut omlette, which was probably the est omlette I've ever made, but seemed like a lot of effort for the pay-off, flavour-wise.

On Wednesday was Christians Together at County Hall, for the first time after lent. It was odd not to see people until then. We had an impromptu look at the last chapter of John and general chat. The Passion came up again, because someone had just got around to seeing it. They didn't like the fact it wasn't strictly biblical, and when I said that was because it was based "on a vision by some nun", Rikky said that one of the problems with Catholicism was that it had a lot of extra-biblical things in it owing to the gradual acceptance of say, nun's visions, by the Church. I didn't want to get into trying to defend Tradition to that many evangelicals at once, but I couldn't let that slide, so I asked if Rikky wouldn't mind having a chat about it at some point. A little later he said a few more things to me personally, about how there are some ex-Catholics in his church, that "people thinking for themselves" was why he thought they left, and that there are some Catholic churches which are okay, in fact they're pretty much Evangelical, but that quite a lot of them are much too superstitious. He also espoused the simplicity of salvation, with the implication that Catholicism was based on bolting on unneccessary features. Bascially I want to try and present my side of the story, and see if he can make anything of it. It's quite daunting.

Been watching The Games, as people who've read mine and James' blog might be able to have guessed. I don't think it's so entertaining as last year. Not sure why. There's no-one who I particularly want to win, above the others, though I was pleased when Jordan/Jodie (people keep telling me they are not the same person - pah) won the fitness test, despite being in clearly terrible shape. I suppose I'd like to see Pat Sharp do well, but not for anything except comedy value. At work Michaela and Sarah were saying how they thought Katy Hill was being really horrible to Lady Hervey, but I'm pretty sure they're both being stupid in different directions. Katy's not good at shutting up, and Isabella's not good at not being offended. And Jodie's good at being illogical and, without apparent guile, making everything worse. Well that's how I saw it. So they hate each other, I think. And Lady Isabella looks really funny when she's drunk - teetotal's a good look for her.