My blood pressure is up tonight. In just two posts on a Facebook forum we had these gems:
"Tooing and throwing"
"Etched its way into the lead"
"Just to tie me over"
WHY CAN'T YOU SPEAK?!! WHO TAUGHT YOU THIS?!
Nobody, that's who! These are not actual phrases or expressions!! This isn't about being unable to spell, it's about not even knowing the words, even on a basic phonetic level. F*ck me. My f*cking cat has a better comprehension of English.
Thursday, 6 June 2019
Wednesday, 5 June 2019
If you've got nothing good to say.....
Ok, the irony isn't lost on me- calling a post "if you've got nothing good to say" on a blog dedicated to criticism. But let's get past that.
If you've ever shopped on Amazon you'll probably have noticed the Question & Answers section on products. If you've bought an item (and maybe you have to have also left a review) and someone asks a question about it, you get an email with that question asking if you can answer. You can also voluntarily answer a question without having bought the product, or having bought it through Amazon. There's no obligation to do so, and you get nothing in return. It's purely an invitation to try and help if you can.
The mind boggles then, at some of the responses (these are just a drop in the ocean):
Q: I'm thinking of buying a set of diamond drill bits alongside this drill. Are there any bits the drill won't accept?
A: Sorry but I've not tried it with diamond drill bits so cannot say.
Q: Hi how much does this drill weigh, including battery?
A: Hi there, the drill weighs about the same as any other drill, no difference really. Ask the manufacturer for weight in kilograms. Hope this helps you out!
Q: Is this television easy to wall mount?
A: Sorry I don't know because I have never wall mounted a television before
Q: Can the (TV) power cable be changed? I'm sending it to country with European plugs.
A: I really don't know. But just to warn you the sound isn't very loud.
**Disclaimer. All the above are based on genuine quotes from Amazon UK, however I have re-worded them slightly to avoid potential copyright issues.
If you've ever shopped on Amazon you'll probably have noticed the Question & Answers section on products. If you've bought an item (and maybe you have to have also left a review) and someone asks a question about it, you get an email with that question asking if you can answer. You can also voluntarily answer a question without having bought the product, or having bought it through Amazon. There's no obligation to do so, and you get nothing in return. It's purely an invitation to try and help if you can.
The mind boggles then, at some of the responses (these are just a drop in the ocean):
Q: I'm thinking of buying a set of diamond drill bits alongside this drill. Are there any bits the drill won't accept?
A: Sorry but I've not tried it with diamond drill bits so cannot say.
Q: Hi how much does this drill weigh, including battery?
A: Hi there, the drill weighs about the same as any other drill, no difference really. Ask the manufacturer for weight in kilograms. Hope this helps you out!
Q: Is this television easy to wall mount?
A: Sorry I don't know because I have never wall mounted a television before
Q: Can the (TV) power cable be changed? I'm sending it to country with European plugs.
A: I really don't know. But just to warn you the sound isn't very loud.
Q: Are the speaker cables hard wired?
A: This was a birthday gift for our Grandchild and I didn't look at it before wrapping.
What makes someone take time out of their day to reply to a question they don't have the answer to? Are people really that stuck for something to do, or it is it a symptom of the narcissistic Facebook-age in which we live where people will take any opportunity to be given a podium on which to offer their take on the issue, no matter how irrelevant?
What makes someone take time out of their day to reply to a question they don't have the answer to? Are people really that stuck for something to do, or it is it a symptom of the narcissistic Facebook-age in which we live where people will take any opportunity to be given a podium on which to offer their take on the issue, no matter how irrelevant?
Granted, the questions are often as stupid as the answers (no such thing as a stupid question? I think we've regressed as a race since that phrase was coined), but sometimes it's refreshing to see these met with the comical sarcasm they so often deserve:
(on a micro-system CD player)
Q: Would this be suitable for use in a caravan
Q: Would this be suitable for use in a caravan
A: Depends on the size of your caravan. My Barbie's caravan is smaller than the unit so in her case no.
**Disclaimer. All the above are based on genuine quotes from Amazon UK, however I have re-worded them slightly to avoid potential copyright issues.
Saturday, 27 April 2019
A bunch of things.....
It's been a while since I've been in a massive rage - maybe I've been bottling it up? So here's a real mixed bag;
Firstly, Social Media Influencer - what the f*ck is that?! This is tantamount to a job role these days, apparently. So I'll tell you what; if you're influenced by what you see or read on social media you're an absolute f*ckwit. You either need to sort yourself out or give up on life altogether. Grow a pair, stop being an absolute lemming moron and get out of the house - and leave your f*cking mobile phone inside.
"Acca's": I used to work in a bookies and there was never such a thing as an "acca". This is a completely made-up word for the idiot-generation we now live amongst who can't be arsed speaking properly. And playing straight into the hands of it's desired audience it isn't even a proper abbreviation - it's not an "accAmulator", it's an "accUmulator". Can't even get that right....
Chimps: The news was reporting yesterday that chimps had learned how to watch videos on mobile phones. This isn't news; everywhere I've been for the last decade I've seen chimps absolutely glued to them.
National Insurance & Pensions: Get your head around this one;
Man A earns £200 a month from the age of 20 and pays £11 NI a month - total paid up to retirement age = £12000, qualifies for full UK pension.
Man B earns £2000 a month from the age of 20 and pays £66 NI a month = total paid up to retirement age = £39,600, qualifies for exactly the same pension as Man A.
Man C earns £4168 a month from the age of 20 and pays £413.92 NI a month but retires at age 29; total paid = £44,703, doesn't qualify for any pension at all despite paying in nearly four times as much as Man A.
What was that ever-churned-out saying about the rich getting richer?
Firstly, Social Media Influencer - what the f*ck is that?! This is tantamount to a job role these days, apparently. So I'll tell you what; if you're influenced by what you see or read on social media you're an absolute f*ckwit. You either need to sort yourself out or give up on life altogether. Grow a pair, stop being an absolute lemming moron and get out of the house - and leave your f*cking mobile phone inside.
"Acca's": I used to work in a bookies and there was never such a thing as an "acca". This is a completely made-up word for the idiot-generation we now live amongst who can't be arsed speaking properly. And playing straight into the hands of it's desired audience it isn't even a proper abbreviation - it's not an "accAmulator", it's an "accUmulator". Can't even get that right....
Chimps: The news was reporting yesterday that chimps had learned how to watch videos on mobile phones. This isn't news; everywhere I've been for the last decade I've seen chimps absolutely glued to them.
National Insurance & Pensions: Get your head around this one;
Man A earns £200 a month from the age of 20 and pays £11 NI a month - total paid up to retirement age = £12000, qualifies for full UK pension.
Man B earns £2000 a month from the age of 20 and pays £66 NI a month = total paid up to retirement age = £39,600, qualifies for exactly the same pension as Man A.
Man C earns £4168 a month from the age of 20 and pays £413.92 NI a month but retires at age 29; total paid = £44,703, doesn't qualify for any pension at all despite paying in nearly four times as much as Man A.
What was that ever-churned-out saying about the rich getting richer?
Thursday, 13 December 2018
Undemocratic?
It's been a while since I've had a rant. And now here's one on a topic I really wanted to avoid as much as possible- Brexit. Specifically, the topic of a second referendum.
The first referendum was akin to someone holding out two clenched hands and asking you to pick one. The left hand definitely contains a £10 note. The right one may contain a £50 note, a £5 note, a pebble, or nothing at all. Do you choose the left hand, knowing you'll definitely get a tenner out of it, or do you gamble on the lucky-dip that is the right hand, hoping to come out better off but risking ending up with nothing?
Or was it? As it currently stands it looks more like being asked which fruit you would prefer- apples or oranges- only for the apple-voting contingent to find out after winning the vote that there aren't in fact any apples on offer, but they can have a banana instead. A lot of people, myself included, don't like bananas; if the vote had been between bananas and oranges from the off, they might have chosen oranges instead.
One far-too-regular contributor to one of the UK's news programmes, a potato-faced muppet and poster-boy for gammon by the name of Brendan something-or-other, can regularly be seen getting very irate at any suggestion of a second referendum, huffing and puffing in red-faced fury that it would be undemocratic.
Sorry? Giving people a vote is undemocratic?
If the electorate were asked to vote on this matter every single week, while it could be called many things the one thing it wouldn't be is undemocratic.
This brings to mind the adage "if you've got nothing to hide....". Those who shout loudest that "the people have spoken!" are the same ones that protest the most about letting the people vote again. It seems strange to me that one could be so certain about the outcome of something yet so rejective of the chance to validate it. Personally I would relish the opportunity to prove my point once and for all and silence the naysayers, or "Remoaners" as they are affectionately referred to in this case.
Of course, while Mr Potato Head and others crow the default pro-Brexit response of "17.4 million people", the figure conveniently forgotten is the 13 million-or-so people who were too apathetic to vote at all, which somewhat dilutes "the people have spoken" stance. 17.4 out of a possible 46.5 million doesn't sound quite as convincing somehow.
Who knows what the outcome would have been if there'd been a 100% turnout? Who knows, two-and-a-half years down the line, how people's opinions might have changed, or how those now old enough to vote may cast their ballot?
We could ask the question, but apparently that would be undemocratic.
The first referendum was akin to someone holding out two clenched hands and asking you to pick one. The left hand definitely contains a £10 note. The right one may contain a £50 note, a £5 note, a pebble, or nothing at all. Do you choose the left hand, knowing you'll definitely get a tenner out of it, or do you gamble on the lucky-dip that is the right hand, hoping to come out better off but risking ending up with nothing?
Or was it? As it currently stands it looks more like being asked which fruit you would prefer- apples or oranges- only for the apple-voting contingent to find out after winning the vote that there aren't in fact any apples on offer, but they can have a banana instead. A lot of people, myself included, don't like bananas; if the vote had been between bananas and oranges from the off, they might have chosen oranges instead.
One far-too-regular contributor to one of the UK's news programmes, a potato-faced muppet and poster-boy for gammon by the name of Brendan something-or-other, can regularly be seen getting very irate at any suggestion of a second referendum, huffing and puffing in red-faced fury that it would be undemocratic.
Sorry? Giving people a vote is undemocratic?
If the electorate were asked to vote on this matter every single week, while it could be called many things the one thing it wouldn't be is undemocratic.
This brings to mind the adage "if you've got nothing to hide....". Those who shout loudest that "the people have spoken!" are the same ones that protest the most about letting the people vote again. It seems strange to me that one could be so certain about the outcome of something yet so rejective of the chance to validate it. Personally I would relish the opportunity to prove my point once and for all and silence the naysayers, or "Remoaners" as they are affectionately referred to in this case.
Of course, while Mr Potato Head and others crow the default pro-Brexit response of "17.4 million people", the figure conveniently forgotten is the 13 million-or-so people who were too apathetic to vote at all, which somewhat dilutes "the people have spoken" stance. 17.4 out of a possible 46.5 million doesn't sound quite as convincing somehow.
Who knows what the outcome would have been if there'd been a 100% turnout? Who knows, two-and-a-half years down the line, how people's opinions might have changed, or how those now old enough to vote may cast their ballot?
We could ask the question, but apparently that would be undemocratic.
Monday, 3 September 2018
Righteous indignation and the lost art of reading
Yesterday I got into an argument with an idiot on Facebook. I really try my hardest not to do this, but sometimes the person in question is so ignorant I just can't help myself.
This particular incident started with someone reacting to a letter in a newspaper, and so determined were they to be offended on someone else's behalf that they completely missed the point of said letter.
In my endeavors to correct this error of judgement and point out that the original letter wasn't anti-anyone (as it had been deemed to be by the idiot), and was really just a statement of common sense in regards to keeping political issues out of situations where they really have no place, I became embattled with the idiot who managed to construct several well-reasoned replies to things I had never actually said.
I could picture his hands in the air, red-faced with fury, blinded by rage, as he picked out the odd trigger-word here or there from my comments and used them to create his own version of my half of the "conversation", to which he could then take deep offence and reply with righteous indignation. He was, in effect, arguing with himself.
Fast forward to today. Someone shares a "ridiculous article!!!" from a news website, encouraging equally-enraged Facebookers to comment on it and shoot them down for this highly-inaccurate and p*ss-poor excuse for reporting.
The trouble is this was an article written by a well-known satirical news site, and if the headline alone wasn't enough to make one realise this was satire, certainly the article content itself was. Or, in fact, any other headline on their website. But in a rush to be outraged the simple art of reading was lost amidst a haze of red mist as the anger coursed through their veins, banging on their computer keyboards with clenched-fists to condemn the article for being "totally untrue and ridiculous!".
It seems to me if you can't be angry and read at the same time, wait until you've cooled off before taking to social media. Or, maybe just don't be offended by every little thing, particularly when it has absolutely no bearing on you or your life whatsoever.
This particular incident started with someone reacting to a letter in a newspaper, and so determined were they to be offended on someone else's behalf that they completely missed the point of said letter.
In my endeavors to correct this error of judgement and point out that the original letter wasn't anti-anyone (as it had been deemed to be by the idiot), and was really just a statement of common sense in regards to keeping political issues out of situations where they really have no place, I became embattled with the idiot who managed to construct several well-reasoned replies to things I had never actually said.
I could picture his hands in the air, red-faced with fury, blinded by rage, as he picked out the odd trigger-word here or there from my comments and used them to create his own version of my half of the "conversation", to which he could then take deep offence and reply with righteous indignation. He was, in effect, arguing with himself.
Fast forward to today. Someone shares a "ridiculous article!!!" from a news website, encouraging equally-enraged Facebookers to comment on it and shoot them down for this highly-inaccurate and p*ss-poor excuse for reporting.
The trouble is this was an article written by a well-known satirical news site, and if the headline alone wasn't enough to make one realise this was satire, certainly the article content itself was. Or, in fact, any other headline on their website. But in a rush to be outraged the simple art of reading was lost amidst a haze of red mist as the anger coursed through their veins, banging on their computer keyboards with clenched-fists to condemn the article for being "totally untrue and ridiculous!".
It seems to me if you can't be angry and read at the same time, wait until you've cooled off before taking to social media. Or, maybe just don't be offended by every little thing, particularly when it has absolutely no bearing on you or your life whatsoever.
Sunday, 26 August 2018
A Different Breed
The UK has recently announced plans to license dog breeders; the typical soft-touch approach to dealing with something that should, if anything, be criminalised.
I'm sure there's more than enough dogs in rescue centres and pounds to satisfy the demand, but these so-called "dog lovers" turn a blind eye to these poor creatures in favour of some bred-to-order thoroughbred or the latest in-fashion designer mongrel.
If someone took a woman and relentlessly forced her to have sex with strangers for the sole purpose of getting her pregnant so that her babies could be immediately removed from her care and sold for profit, there would be- rightly so- a national outcry. "How can this happen in this day and age?!" they would say. But when people do that with a dog it's OK, because it's just a dog.
So dog breeders, why don't you consider whoring out your wife or daughter to make a few quid instead of exploiting poor defenseless animals who can't turn round and tell you what an immoral, profiteering c*nt you actually are?
I'm sure there's more than enough dogs in rescue centres and pounds to satisfy the demand, but these so-called "dog lovers" turn a blind eye to these poor creatures in favour of some bred-to-order thoroughbred or the latest in-fashion designer mongrel.
If someone took a woman and relentlessly forced her to have sex with strangers for the sole purpose of getting her pregnant so that her babies could be immediately removed from her care and sold for profit, there would be- rightly so- a national outcry. "How can this happen in this day and age?!" they would say. But when people do that with a dog it's OK, because it's just a dog.
So dog breeders, why don't you consider whoring out your wife or daughter to make a few quid instead of exploiting poor defenseless animals who can't turn round and tell you what an immoral, profiteering c*nt you actually are?
Friday, 20 July 2018
Words fail me......and them
It's been a long time since I've been sufficiently riled up enough to have a good rant, but today is one of those days, and as usual it is over something petty that does not affect my life in any way, yet still manages to get my blood pressure up.
Posting on a local Spain-based Facebook forum, someone presents the following:
"Hi !
Is there a English speaking opticians in Baza!"
Posting on a local Spain-based Facebook forum, someone presents the following:
"Hi !
Is there a English speaking opticians in Baza!"
One wonders how on earth it is possible to cram so many mistakes into such a short sentence. I should think the cat hammering on the keyboard in the famous meme would produce something more closely resembling English.
I can't decide whether it's ironic or just downright audacious to expect someone of a different language to have learnt yours when you haven't bothered to yourself, and it's debatable whether the poor optician- if one is found- will be able to understand the creator of this random assembly of letters and punctuation marks.
I suppose it could always be put down to poor eyesight........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)