Honestly, you people disgust me.
Should have stayed in bed...
The views expressed on this site are just my opinions, mine alone, mine all mine. If you don't like them then feel free to say so - just don't sue me okay. It was either this or stand on a street corner shouting at people...
16.8.06
17.2.06
Pssst…wanta buy a credit card?
The government has bizarrely decided (a lot of my thoughts begin this way) that it is a good idea to allow children under the age of eighteen to have credit cards. In their infinite wisdom they have degreed that although children are not sufficiently mature to have a beer down the local pub, they are capable of joining the army, getting shot or blown up and happily running themselves into a life of debt.
Am I alone in thinking that this is in the best interests of the credit card companies, rather than the kids themselves? The whole idea of this is just stupid, crazy, mad, exploitive, commercial and unethical.
At least that is what I thought BP (before pregnancy)
Now I find myself faced with the very real possibility that my wife is about to introduce three additional people into our lives (all in one go), I find that I have changed my mind about the government’s decision and instead applaud them for the brave stance they have taken on this controversial issue.
I intend to hover over my wife’s belly as she gives birth, a wad of credit card applications clutched in my sweaty hands. The moment those kids come out I’m signing them up to as many companies as I can get (I assume a handprint and a dollop of afterbirth will pass as a signature). As soon as the forms are approved I plan to put all child-rearing expenses onto their individual accounts. On their 18th birthdays I will proudly present them with their bills and sod off to live on a tropical island with the money I’ve saved.
God bless you Mr. Blair.
Am I alone in thinking that this is in the best interests of the credit card companies, rather than the kids themselves? The whole idea of this is just stupid, crazy, mad, exploitive, commercial and unethical.
At least that is what I thought BP (before pregnancy)
Now I find myself faced with the very real possibility that my wife is about to introduce three additional people into our lives (all in one go), I find that I have changed my mind about the government’s decision and instead applaud them for the brave stance they have taken on this controversial issue.
I intend to hover over my wife’s belly as she gives birth, a wad of credit card applications clutched in my sweaty hands. The moment those kids come out I’m signing them up to as many companies as I can get (I assume a handprint and a dollop of afterbirth will pass as a signature). As soon as the forms are approved I plan to put all child-rearing expenses onto their individual accounts. On their 18th birthdays I will proudly present them with their bills and sod off to live on a tropical island with the money I’ve saved.
God bless you Mr. Blair.
7.2.06
At last, some good news.
Great news for those dissatisfied with the litigious society in which we live.
A man is suing iPod because his hearing might be damaged by listening to the music machine. Note – his hearing might be damaged. He has, in fact, not suffered any hearing loss. This technicality has not prevented him from bringing a law suit covering the possibility of him doing so in the future.
Now I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that here is an ideal opportunity for all of us. If this man’s case can proceed based on nothing but possible future harm because he’s not bright enough to find the volume button, then the next logical step must be to sue for the possibility of hearing damage without actually owning an iPod.
This idea must work as both cases are dealing with a theoretical situation.
As it stands the bloke’s case appears to be – My iPod has a high volume setting, therefore I might listen to my iPod too loud, therefore I might damage my hearing, therefore I am going to sue.
All I’m suggesting is saving a few quid by removing a step in the process - I might buy an iPod, therefore it will have a high volume, therefore I might listen to it too loud etc etc.
Given that we’re on to a winner here, let’s leave Apple alone for a minute and open this up a bit. Based on this case I reckon that I could mount an effective suit against a major cigarette company based on the fact that I might contract lung cancer – even though I don’t smoke. Hell, I’m even prepared to buy some fags and leave them unsmoked in a drawer at home to show I’m serious about this.
Alternatively I could sue a car manufacturer because I was going to buy their make of car and therefore I might have suffered an injury if I perhaps had an accident.
If everyone gets behind this idea we can all sue each other for the most convoluted combinations of possibilities that we can imagine. Sure this will cause a few legal headaches but screw it; if we lose we can always sue the lawyer because he didn’t represent us properly in another case we might have brought instead.
As far as I can see this is a win-win situation and an ideal way to ensure the World’s wealth remains in good, and rapid, circulation.
See you in court.
A man is suing iPod because his hearing might be damaged by listening to the music machine. Note – his hearing might be damaged. He has, in fact, not suffered any hearing loss. This technicality has not prevented him from bringing a law suit covering the possibility of him doing so in the future.
Now I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that here is an ideal opportunity for all of us. If this man’s case can proceed based on nothing but possible future harm because he’s not bright enough to find the volume button, then the next logical step must be to sue for the possibility of hearing damage without actually owning an iPod.
This idea must work as both cases are dealing with a theoretical situation.
As it stands the bloke’s case appears to be – My iPod has a high volume setting, therefore I might listen to my iPod too loud, therefore I might damage my hearing, therefore I am going to sue.
All I’m suggesting is saving a few quid by removing a step in the process - I might buy an iPod, therefore it will have a high volume, therefore I might listen to it too loud etc etc.
Given that we’re on to a winner here, let’s leave Apple alone for a minute and open this up a bit. Based on this case I reckon that I could mount an effective suit against a major cigarette company based on the fact that I might contract lung cancer – even though I don’t smoke. Hell, I’m even prepared to buy some fags and leave them unsmoked in a drawer at home to show I’m serious about this.
Alternatively I could sue a car manufacturer because I was going to buy their make of car and therefore I might have suffered an injury if I perhaps had an accident.
If everyone gets behind this idea we can all sue each other for the most convoluted combinations of possibilities that we can imagine. Sure this will cause a few legal headaches but screw it; if we lose we can always sue the lawyer because he didn’t represent us properly in another case we might have brought instead.
As far as I can see this is a win-win situation and an ideal way to ensure the World’s wealth remains in good, and rapid, circulation.
See you in court.
28.1.06
Blog Lite
I was just thinking, if low fat spreads actually taste like 'the real thing', then why do they continue to make the full fat versions?
17.1.06
ITV2 has succeeded where Channel 4, with its flashy Big Brother, has failed.
Usually If I was to start off on one about TV it would be because of the generally crap standard of the programs available - but not this time.
Every once in a while a program comes along that really catches your attention, makes you sit down and really look deeply at your life, a program that causes you to reevaluate your whole belief system.
Such a program was ‘When Soapstars Sing’ (prime time - does exactly what it says on the box.)
This program made me think longer and harder than I have in years. I sat down and reviewed my life up to this point, the highs, the lows. I thought about where I was now and what my future might be like. I was forced to look deep, deep inside myself until I reached the inevitable conclusion.
This was a masterpiece of programming. There is nothing, N.O.T.H.I.N.G, in the whole world that I care less about than this program. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
It’s a relief to know, that at only 37, I have already seen the Void.
Every once in a while a program comes along that really catches your attention, makes you sit down and really look deeply at your life, a program that causes you to reevaluate your whole belief system.
Such a program was ‘When Soapstars Sing’ (prime time - does exactly what it says on the box.)
This program made me think longer and harder than I have in years. I sat down and reviewed my life up to this point, the highs, the lows. I thought about where I was now and what my future might be like. I was forced to look deep, deep inside myself until I reached the inevitable conclusion.
This was a masterpiece of programming. There is nothing, N.O.T.H.I.N.G, in the whole world that I care less about than this program. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
It’s a relief to know, that at only 37, I have already seen the Void.
21.12.05
I predict a riot?
A parody on the lyrics to the Kaiser Chiefs song - ‘I Predict a Riot'.
Those of you who don't know the song:
a) won't get it at all
b) should go and get a copy as it's very good
c) really should have better things to do with your time
...................................................
Watching the doctors come for me
Swearing again, oh bloody
It's not my fault I'm so leery
And not that I'm twitching neither
My mouth I wish I could sweeten
Before I get done by a policeman
Then he would teach me a lesson
Ending up in the prison
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala la
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I don't mean to be arsy
I just can't help it, you see
It's not my fault, but fuck me
Not covering myself in glory
Bugger and Twat and Hard-on
Poo, Willy, Bum and Moron
I don't know why I was chosen
It's reprehensible
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala la
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
And if there's anybody left in here
That really wants to hear me swear
Call a biker a fairy
Smashes my head in for me
No wonder that I'm so wary
And not comprehensible
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
And if there's anybody left in here
That really wants to hear me swear
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
Those of you who don't know the song:
a) won't get it at all
b) should go and get a copy as it's very good
c) really should have better things to do with your time
...................................................
Watching the doctors come for me
Swearing again, oh bloody
It's not my fault I'm so leery
And not that I'm twitching neither
My mouth I wish I could sweeten
Before I get done by a policeman
Then he would teach me a lesson
Ending up in the prison
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala la
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I don't mean to be arsy
I just can't help it, you see
It's not my fault, but fuck me
Not covering myself in glory
Bugger and Twat and Hard-on
Poo, Willy, Bum and Moron
I don't know why I was chosen
It's reprehensible
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala la
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
And if there's anybody left in here
That really wants to hear me swear
Call a biker a fairy
Smashes my head in for me
No wonder that I'm so wary
And not comprehensible
La-ah-ah, la la lalala la
Ah-ah-ah, la la lalala
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
And if there's anybody left in here
That really wants to hear me swear
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
I call it Tourettes, I call it Tourettes
19.12.05
The best invention ever!
New Scientist magazine recently ran an article on what has to be the best invention ever – it’s a drug that erases memories.
It appears that particularly traumatic events leave a strong memory signature that use of the new drug (whose name escapes me – but really if you want actual facts you’re in the wrong place), reduces. The drug is marketed at people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the hope is that it will reduce the intensity of the memories and help heal people.
Well, excuse me but I think they are really missing the point here. The moment I heard about the drug I wanted it, no more than that, needed it. I don’t have PTSD but there are one or two little incidents I would give a great deal to forget. Pop a pill and FLASH, gone is my entire time at school, drop another and BOOM, that whole regrettable sexual thing that I don’t talk about much (except, you know, when I’m really pissed) is history.
The possibilities seemed endless. People I could forget, places that would vanish from my mind, experiences unwanted removed for ever. Then I thought - hang on, I’m going about this all wrong, I shouldn’t be taking the pill, I should be giving it to other people.
Boys – hard night on the piss? Spewed up on the curtains again? No worries – just pop a pill in the wife’s tea and, hey presto, she’ll forget all about it.
Girls – let slip the truth about size mattering? Screamed the wrong name during orgasm (again)? Don’t worry; a craftily slipped pill will sort things out.
This pill could be the saving of relationships as we know them. No more three day sulks, sleeping on the couch or buying expensive gifts. Just pass your partner a Micky Finn and get on with your day.
And the benefits are not limited to couples, the commercial potential is endless. Just think – you run a bungee-jumping school, you offer a special deal – A free beer for every first time jumper – you push them off the bridge, give them a spiked drink, and sell them another go once they’ve forgotten the experience. Pure brilliance.
I’m sure that there is a potential downside here somewhere but I’m damned if I can see it. So cheers all, and I’ll race you down the chemists.
It appears that particularly traumatic events leave a strong memory signature that use of the new drug (whose name escapes me – but really if you want actual facts you’re in the wrong place), reduces. The drug is marketed at people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the hope is that it will reduce the intensity of the memories and help heal people.
Well, excuse me but I think they are really missing the point here. The moment I heard about the drug I wanted it, no more than that, needed it. I don’t have PTSD but there are one or two little incidents I would give a great deal to forget. Pop a pill and FLASH, gone is my entire time at school, drop another and BOOM, that whole regrettable sexual thing that I don’t talk about much (except, you know, when I’m really pissed) is history.
The possibilities seemed endless. People I could forget, places that would vanish from my mind, experiences unwanted removed for ever. Then I thought - hang on, I’m going about this all wrong, I shouldn’t be taking the pill, I should be giving it to other people.
Boys – hard night on the piss? Spewed up on the curtains again? No worries – just pop a pill in the wife’s tea and, hey presto, she’ll forget all about it.
Girls – let slip the truth about size mattering? Screamed the wrong name during orgasm (again)? Don’t worry; a craftily slipped pill will sort things out.
This pill could be the saving of relationships as we know them. No more three day sulks, sleeping on the couch or buying expensive gifts. Just pass your partner a Micky Finn and get on with your day.
And the benefits are not limited to couples, the commercial potential is endless. Just think – you run a bungee-jumping school, you offer a special deal – A free beer for every first time jumper – you push them off the bridge, give them a spiked drink, and sell them another go once they’ve forgotten the experience. Pure brilliance.
I’m sure that there is a potential downside here somewhere but I’m damned if I can see it. So cheers all, and I’ll race you down the chemists.
