This will no longer be a concern. You can even go camping. Safe in the knowledge that your bidet can come with you.


This will no longer be a concern. You can even go camping. Safe in the knowledge that your bidet can come with you.


Nathan runs St Eutychus. He is currently a student at the Queensland Theological College. In a previous professional life he worked in public relations for an economic development and tourism marketing organisation. He is married to Robyn. He likes coffee and the internet.
Nathan has produced 3163 articles.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
67214 Commentshttp://st-eutychus.com/2009/for-the-sophisticated-traveller/For+the+sophisticated+traveller2009-10-16+13%3A58%3A02Nathan+Campbell for “For the sophisticated traveller”
Eutychus was a young man who fell to his death because the Apostle Paul preached for too long (Acts 20). I've decided to canonise Eutychus and make him the patron saint of my dalliances around the Internet.
Nathan is a Christian. A husband. A writer. A reader. A coffee drinker. A “spin twit”. A consumer. A fan of stupid gadgets. A fan of staccato lists in profiles.
Check out my photos on Picasa
Or on Flickr
Watch my videos on YouTube
Follow me on Twitter.
Connect with me on
LinkedIn
Be my friend on
Facebook
Check out my bookmarks on Delicious.



1Lee Shelton
wrote on 16 October 2009 at 16:29
I see you're firmly in the "irregardless" camp as well. :)
2st_eutychus
wrote on 18 October 2009 at 11:57
I like the word irregardless. Though I can understand why people fall into the "regardless" category… This sits alongside the "less v fewer" debate as one of those grammatical battles I'm not willing to fight.
3Leah
wrote on 19 October 2009 at 3:03
I was always under the impression "traveler" was American and "traveller" British/Australian.
4Andrew
wrote on 19 October 2009 at 7:20
Did President Bush Jr make up the word 'Irregardless'? And wouldn't your use of it here imply a double negative so that your use of this contraption did connect with your use of one 'l' or two?