Woman says: women don't control what they do

Before I start this post: A big "fuck you" award goes to blogger.com for the inability to format a text so that it has different colours (And I thought we live in the year 2010 and not 1980)! Thank you blogger, you are getting worse every day!

A woman came up with a top 10 list recently. It was about the most common misconceptions of men regarding women's dating patterns. If this had not been written by a woman, I would say it's insulting. But because it was written by a woman, it's even more pathetic.

I will only list the ones I found interesting:

Misconception #1: "Women want to be treated equitably"

"When it's about the first date, women have little desire for emancipation. Even emancipated women wish that the man pays during the first restaurant visit, holds the door open and, not later than the second date, seeks physical contact (holding hands, kiss)".

My comment: This is a perfect example for a common problem in society. Many women don't understand why men don't take them seriously or why it's oh so difficult to be taken seriously. The problem is: Most women only fight for rights, not for responsibilities that come with them. In Germany, many women fought for the right to be able to enter the army as a soldier (soldieress? soldierina?). But few eventually take the step and join the army. To be more drastic, no woman (and of course no man) ever seems to seriously demand that women have the same duty to enter the army that men have. Of course no man would go to court to demand this, because he would be ridiculed, but where is the woman (or at least politician) who takes that step?

You don't have to agree with me here anyway. There are less extreme examples. And the fact that a woman in her first date with a man wants to fulfil the typical role of a passive female is already the first step of unconsciously sending signals she wants to be the one who is led and not leading (or sharing the leading role). I am not saying that everything has to be equal. But I am saying that women should ask themselves what they want instead of changing between priviliges of being a woman and demanding whatever they want whenever they feel like it (and THAT, my friends, is a HUGE prejudice that many men have).

Don't get me wrong. It's okay if the guy does all the things that are described above. But I find it bitchy and silly that some women insist on this "protocol" of a first date.

Misconception #2: "Since women wish for a strong man, men are not allowed to show weaknesses"

"The exact opposite is the case. While there is always a hierarchy among men, women focus more on common ground and bonding. Manly impressing behaviour doesn't affect women in a positive way for that reason. Instead, men who can show weaknesses make a much better impression".

My comment: This is what every woman wants to believe. And you know what? Instead of arguing my ass off here, I will just go to the next point and then you think about this one again, okay?

Misconception #3: "Women only like machos"

"A massive prejudice of men stands behind this. But women like men who dare to approach them and who show courage. Among these active men that show initiave, there can of course be some machos. But that doesn't have to be that way."

My comment: Now we come to the "sexy sandwich maker / responsible rebel" problem that I described a long time ago. Women say that they like men who can admit their weaknesses. But then again, such men also have to be full of courage and faith in themselves. The problem is that it's difficult to be a man who struggles with his weaknesses once in a while and then at the same time is so strong and active.

I am even wondering what kind of weakness is even okay for a woman. It can't be a very bad weakness like being shy, insecure and the like, because then that person wouldn't be good enough to be courageous. But if it's a weakness like forgetting to brush one's teeth or not cleaning up the apartment, is that what a woman would accept???

What I'm trying to point out anyway is that the two points above totally contradict each other in my opinion. I am not saying that there is no possibility they go together, but come on, it's so hard to make everything perfect for this kind of woman who thinks like this.

Misconception #4: "Women are dishonest and only want to play games".

"Not more and not less than men do. Saying this, you should not forget that women don't deliberately control their behaviour, let alone to make men angry".

My comment: WHAT THE FUCK!!!

A woman "admits" that women don't consciously control what they do, in other words are only driven by instinct? Does that mean that, when they cook or go shopping, they only follow impulses and don't really "think" what they do? I mean, okay, that would sound like a reasonable explanation from a guy who doesn't like women. But this comes directly from a woman. By trying to clean up so many misconceptions, she opened up a new file of idiocy and embarrassment. I don't want to ammuse myself here at the expenses of women, but sometimes ONE woman can make more points for the ones she argues against than for herself, and that woman is the writer of this top 10 list. Congrats!

Shake babies if they write!

Even nowadays many parents shake their babies if they write? How does that make sense? I would be happy if I had a baby and it could already write. Or maybe there is a typo and the word is "schreien" instead of "schreiben". Then that would mean that parents shake babies because they scream. How ironic, considering that the same website promotes having children.

Our next contribution to the world of senselessness is a wrong translation in the game "PES 2011". I need to let you know that this game series is full of language-related flaws. The first time I noticed this was in "PES 2008", where there was seriously a part in the german manual that said, in english, "please translate!!!". The most surprising and disappointing thing is that the game series is actually pretty good. So why do they not put the same effort into the translations? 90 per cent of all other games I know try hard enough and usually succeed. The easiest way is to just employ one native speaker.

The below picture shows a mission. A mission is an achievement you are supposed to work on. When you do so, you get rewarded. The mission here says: Prevent opponent goals. That means to me: I am not supposed to let the opponent score a goal against me in this football game. I got suspicious from the start, because prior to this mission, I had already fulfilled the mission "win three matches without any goal against you". That was harder. Why would this one come now, after such a long time?

Well, in the end it turned out to be a translation mistake. Because on several occasions, I won without the opponent scoring a single goal against me. Then what I tried instead was not allowing ANY shots at all. I took the ball from my enemy whenever I could and kept it in my defense, only passing it back and forth for the entire game. I am not sure which part of doing this made me achieve the mission requirements, but that's how I won. But still it's frustrating when you have to guess what you have to do.

I would have loved to change the settings from German to English to see what the actual mission in English would have been, but strangely there is no English text available in this game. In earlier versions, it was possible. I don't know enough French or Russian so I have to do without it here. Maybe the reason English is not included here is because they don't want to embarrass themselves when I compare them?

When journalists run out of things to say

Why are there two articles right next to each other with the same content?



Both of them deal with the same topic. They describe how the sex life of some people goes bad. Mentioned in both articles: How work affects the stress level, how a romantic weekend can save a relationship and how talking honestly to each other can help.

It still seems to me that a machine produces all these articles. One is categorised as "partnership", the other one as "sexuality". Perhaps that is the reason why these articles, who belong to the upper category "lifestyle", say the same things. Or maybe two authors worked on these articles, got the same information and published it in their respective categories. I don't know. But it's pretty useless. Even the pictures say the same thing. And they are always taken from a source that takes these pictures to display a specific setting or mood or situation. Maybe it really comes from a machine, all of it.

How to confuse readers

Check the parts marked in red.

My last post already indicated how confusing t-online articles are. Here is yet another example. "Will Porsche return to formula (which formula anyway?) after 19 years?". Good question. Then the bold text starts, and all of a sudden, Porsche might return 51 years after their last race... huh?

Okay... what about the picture...hmm... "On 5 August 1984, Alain Prost passes the chequered flag first". 1984? That is 26 years ago, neither 51 nor 19. Alright. So how do all these confusing events fit together?

To understand this, you either have to be a formula one expert, or you have to spend the next 1 and a half hours reading up on formula one. I have the advantage of knowing formula one well enough, so let me give you the information.

1. Yes, Porsche was active deep into the 1960s with a works team. That means that Porsche did both the manufacturing and the engine part. The cars and engines were Porsche. So yes, that was their last race back then... but not as an engine maker.

2. In the 1980s, they came back and supplied formula one teams with their engines. Most successfully, they did that with the McLaren team. So this time, they were not the team, only the ones who produced the engine (I will spare you the complicated details of why it was called "McLaren TAG Porsche" though). When the dominance of the Porsche decreased and the McLaren-Porsche alliance ended, Porsche provided the Arrows team with engines with very little success until the early 90s.

3. The picture of the 1984 victory was one of many victories. Since it was a victory in August that year, I suppose it was not even the first victory that year.

Okay... so why is all of this confusion necessary? Throwing around numbers is not very impressive when the "1" in "formula 1" is missing in the headline.

Is the mentioning of numbers supposed to evoke emotions of any kind? Well, if you want it to sound epic, stick to one large number, either the total number of race victories by engine, or the 51 years because it sounds so long ago, but just stick to one thing. You can still mention the other facts one by one, one at a time, but please, keep the numbers to yourselves if it only confuses people...

He cheats, she cheats, everyone cheats?!

Uhh.. what? What is wrong with T-online.de again? They put an article online that was about cheating in a relationship. They only can't decide what to write there. In the headline, they say "if she earns a lot, he cheats". But then, when they start the text, they suddenly claim that "if she earns a lot, she cheats".




Later they explain that both is the case. Meaning: If the woman in a relationship earns more (not "a lot", just "more") than the male partner, then he is more likely to cheat on her. At the same time, she is also more likely to cheat on him. In America. Another thing that makes me wonder why we need to read about this study.

The confusion goes on as the writers of the article mix apples with oranges. The way it is written, it makes you think that the woman cheats because she can't rely on the man, and the man cheats because of his hurt ego. On top of that, check this out: If the woman is financially dependent on the man, then he also cheats a lot! What?!

You can prove everything with statistics.

The most daring part is what is claimed here: If the man is a latino, he is more likely to cheat. Wow! Bringing up facts is a good thing but I wonder if that's politically correct. I mean, if there was information in this article about the sex life of muslim or jewish men, I bet there would be protests and threats of murder everywhere.

Here are some of the conclusions we should remember:

-If the woman earns more, the man cheats
-If the woman depends on the man, the man cheats
-If the woman earns more and the man is a latino, he DEFINITELY cheats

Conclusion: The man is always the asshole.

According to the article, sophisticated people cheat on each other a lot less often. One user who commented thinks that this has to do with financial matters (a divorce is expensive).

However, I will end this post with one user comment that concludes this weird article, and I believe this is what sums the craziness up (I salute the person who was creative enough for this):

"It could also be that the act of cheating of some women with a higher income is also their profession".

Mohrle (1992 - 2010)

Mohrle was my first cat, I got her when I was 9 years old. Since then, there was not one school that I went to, not one company that I worked for without her being around when I came home. Everything that happened in my life involved her in some way.

She was also my best childhood and teenage friend, overall friend, sister. It doesn't take words or other "human" things to make a deep and strong relationship between a cat and a human person. And as many pet lovers will agree, having a pet like that for so long already qualifies the animal as "human" and "family member" in the mind of the owner. I don't see a difference between her being a cat or a human being.

When everyone was depressed, she was the only one who improved the mood. She never came home angry from hunting to let go of her frustration at home. She never pushed anyone aside just because she was not feeling too good, never did any of the things that are oh so human that are our weaknesses. She didn't even worry about the future. But she did worry when I didn't come home for whatever reason. And it was the ritual of both of us to see each other at the end of the day and spend some time together.

Mohrle was very smart. She accidentally learned that, when she hit the glass window when trying to catch insects, she would catch my attention and make me open the window. This is how we found out that "scratching" means "please open the window". Apart from that, she could read the signs that I give her and she had a very good understanding of us humans. When she wanted something, she would also touch us with her paw gently.

Mohrle was also very sweet and very much focussed on people. Not like many other cats who are very independent and focus on that. She liked to go for walks when someone left the house, and when her health allowed it, she would always stick arround when taking a walk, and not go home because she was tired. She would "talk" to me, and walk around my legs over and over, begging us to go home, but she wouldn't just walk away. Mohrle was very caring and very...respectful towards us. It's hard to explain.

There are many, many stories that went on. Times she got lost, times she got almost lost, times we thought she would never come back again but after some hours, my dad just whistled and she was next to him. There were times she was injured on many occasions. And other times when she was funny, cute, silly. Over 18 years full of stories. And my brother can't even remember the time before she was there.

And I, I still remember the very first day. I remember how her mum looked, and the sibling. All different colours than her. She was very traumatised the day we got her, when she was taken away from her family as a very young and small cat. My dad told us to leave her alone for some time. The next morning, I found Mohrle lying around my dads neck like a scarf, sleeping like a baby.
Then, when we first let her out of the house into the garden, she seemed to walk further and further away, into the bushes. Only after some time we realised she would only go as far as we would follow her. She stayed nearby. That's the family bond that was there after only some days.

Mohrle was born in March 1992 and died yesterday, August 19 2010. She was ill, had a fatal disease, and showed signs of being too close to the end. It hurts but it was the right time to go to the vet one last time.

It's sad that cats don't get the recognition that humans get when they die. There isn't really any "achievement" you can measure, and they don't leave behind much more than pictures, video material and memories. I can only say that she had a big impact on me. And if I could declare her a human being, I would.

Alien monster spider invasion!!!

Help me! Help me!!!



They are everywhere! T-online.de wrote that there is a "monster spider invasion" and spiegel.de describes them as "aliens", and when someone writes "aliens" (literally) then it can only mean aliens from outta space because in the German language the word "aliens" does not have a second meaning such as "foreigners". So it's really true! Monster spiders from outta space are conquering Germany. And then they're going to conquer Europe. And then the world. AHHHHHHH!!!!

Please do something! Call the police! Call Obama! Anyone! We must stop them. T-online.de also said they are sometimes 30 centimeters long, even though spiegel.de says they only reach 20 cm the most. But who cares! It's not like anyone has the time to measure them when they are obviously giant alien killer (mutant?) superpower spiders! Some people say they are not at all poisonous and don't even produce any ugly liquids, but how can we be sure of that? Do you want to trust some assumption someone made just like that? The species isn't even known by scientists yet. Yes, that's true. The species has not been determined yet. And of course not, because they are aliens!!! Help us!

I know it's very serious. The end is near. The media are not overreacting here. You know how reliable they are and how they know when to give warnings. I mean, the flood in Pakistan, they also report on that but much more calmly, and that proves that the spiders ARE a threat! They're gonna kill us with their legs! Or bite us...

Technically, they aren't even real spiders, but supposedly spider-like animals such as scorpions are. But even scorpions are dangerous, and they are even less spider-like. And if spider-lesser animals are dangerous, then spider-erer animals are a hell lot more dangerous. Right???

Think about it... they can cover your whole face with their long body... just as in... as in... the "alien" movies... Oh my god... the creators of "alien" were right.

The worst thing about these spiders. They attack in groups. They stick to walls in hundreds. And they must be super intelligent because they are social. When they are approached, they start swinging their bodies up and down to scare people. You see? They are like the raptors from Jurrassic Park: Social, intelligent, use attack patterns in a group. Woah!

And on spiegel.de the story goes on. A scientist was called by a woman who told him on the phone she was going to enter a barn to take a picture of the spiders, and she said she was going to call back afterwards. The scientist never heard of her again!

If you don't hear from me any more after this post, then you know that the worst has happened. If you live outside of Europe, then you probably haven't heard of this but you will... just be prepared. I warned you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A dubious subcategory

Didn't see that one coming...

Marketing flaws

There is a trend in TV advertising. The more a company puts effort into using a popular sportsperson to promote a product, the more it turns out wrong because that person becomes very unsuccessful or is involved in scandals.

In Germany, it happened to the Nutella brand that's a well-known chocolate spread worldwide, produced by an Italian company. Nutella was heavily advertised on TV by the German national football team (or soccer, for those of you who think there is another sport that involves feet much more than this sport).

The impressive oddity: Of the carefully chosen number of players that were chosen for the Nutella add, most of them had strange twists in their career. One was banned from the team permanently because of a disrespectful act. Another player, who was half American, decided to play for the US Team because he saw greater chances for himself there. Other players were not nominated for the team any more, were injured or didn't do so well.
The advertisements kept on going on TV as if nothing had happened. For months.

The same happened to the team captain, Michael Ballack. He got injured before this year's world cup, and still, there are so many advertisements on TV and everywhere in the city where people use him for marketing. Which is pointless because he is not the kind of person that they wanted him to be, staying home, recovering from an injury. A great misinvestment.

The latest entry in the inglorious list of marketing mistakes is the Nike TV add called "write the future".



It shows several world class players on a football field. Several of the players have visions during the game as to what will happen if they score a goal, win a fight, trick the opponent, and so on. Amazingly, all the players in this video have had an unsuccessful time in the world cup.

Franck Ribery: Had to go home after the group phase, with France not winning a single game at all and a big scandal surrounding the team spirit, the coach and the press.

Didier Drogba: Played for Ivory Coast in a killer group with Brazil and Portugal. Didn't have a chance, was also slightly injured which made it difficult for him.

Wayne Rooney: Reached the phase of the last 16 teams, but England lost against Germany and Rooney didn't score a single goal in the whole world cup.

Fabio Cannavaro: Also didn't make it through the group phase. The world champion team of Italy was last and shamefully went home with no wins and one defeat against a supposedly weaker team.

Ronaldinho: Didn't even enter the world cup! The Brazilian coach didn't nominate him for his team, so Nike was completely wrong choosing a player that didn't even turn out to be travelling to South Africa.

Cristiano Ronaldo: Survived the group phase, but only scored against North Korea. His arrogance and cry-baby attitude were the only things to rememebr about him. His team left the world cup after being defeated by Spain just after the group phase in the first K.O. match. His last deed: Spitting on the ground in front of the fans.

It is amazing how literally every player who plays a big role in this video didn't make it very far. Just to give you an idea: None of these players are even in the quarter finals! That means that 8 teams are left, but Nike was unable to at least have one lucky guess with the players in the video.


Maybe the problem lies in the fact that only people are being chosen who already are superstars. Either the pressure on them is super high, especially when they haven't won anything with the national teams yet, or they are simply too old or already had their time.

Perhaps you also know of such cases. I'm sure you have seen some person on TV who advertised for something but had the handicap of not being successful, or being involved in a scandal, or even being dead in that very moment.

The media's lies

Making small mistakes like typos or sentences repeating over and over is something tolerable. But when facts are conveyed wrong because of serious carelessness or even the attempt to lie, then that is a problem.



T-online.de crossed the line. Their article "Barely any unemployed people in 2025" states that, according to a research institute, there would only be 1.5 million unemployed people in Germany in 2025. At the same time they said there were up to 5 million unemployed people right now.

The prospect of employment changing so rapidly seemed unrealistic to me. I checked the website of the institute. And guess what? They did NOT say that! They said the number of unemployed persons would decrease by 1.5 million, not to 1.5. million. Do the math! It's a big difference!

This is especially annoying when you consider that I work for the national employment agency. Many comments by angry citizens on the t-online website stated that the statistics were fake, that we are all assholes, and so on. Well, you see what happens when newspapers and online services give people the wrong image. They get their clicks, their views, their money, their attention, we have to suffer. And the people.... they get lied to.

A dead baby and useless text

Another text was put online with no one reading it before they put it there. Someone was interviewed about the so called vuvuzelas, african horns that are used in football stadiums to make annoying sounds. Well, in the last paragraph, either the interviewee decided to rephrase his own sentence, or, which i suspect, someone typed the whole shit, then decided to try again, but didn't delete anything. Maybe it's a case of "oh, hey, you got new shoes, girl. Yeah, I also watched Sex And The City 2... yeah... I also didn't like it... where was I...oh right, finish the sentence".

Text marked blue, after that the repetition starts.



Another story I read right after that was surprising and left me in a disappointed state. It's about a case in Brazil where a judge decided that a woman is not allowed to abort her unborn baby that happens to have no brain. She has to bear the baby even though there is no chance of survival. The reason why she is not allowed to abort the baby is because there seems to be no life-threatening danger to the would-be mother.
Why is it like that? Because the Brazilian law says so. Abortions are only allowed if the life of the mother is in danger or if the baby is the result of rape.
Adding another point, attempts to change these laws failed because of the influence of the Catholic church. Well done, morons.
And, just to provoke some thoughts, a comment on the article done by some reader was that the whole point of an ultrasound check, which this woman did, was to find diseases. Yeah... imagine that. Why is there an ultrasound check if it's not even allowed to have an abortion? Just to determine the gender of the child?

Imagine you have an airbag in your car but you are only allowed to use it to sleep on when you are tired...

I am a prophet

How to mess up a text. I have a screen shot here that I got from the news channel of my nintendo wii. On the right is a picture that you can barely see, but what you can see is the photographer's name below it. Then check out the text. In the third and fourth line is a really long word that doesn't make sense...


I will write the rest of the sentence here if you can't read it: Wirtschaftsstreitigkhilipp Guellandeiten. Now you might be thinking, what a complicated language is this damn German?! But it's not as bad as you might think. Wirtschafts... means "economic". After that comes a word that is supposed to mean "troubles" but it gets interrupted. And if you are smart then you noticed that it is the photographer's name!!! Yes! Someone wrote a text and didn't erase the photographer's name that was still somewhere in between. IN THE TEXT.

Let me clear up the words:

Wirtschaftsstreitigkhilipp Guellandeiten
1. Wirtschafts-
2. Streitigkeiten
3. Philipp Guelland
That means they puzzled it like this: Wirtschaftsstreitigkhilipp Guellandeiten

Dear Philipp Guelland, you made it into the news more than you thought you would. And it took me some time to figure out what this word mess meant. But you made it.

Another thing I recently heard about, just some weeks ago, was something I had already written about and even PREDICTED some time ago. Please read my entry dated

Thursday, December 18, 2008

to catch up with the story. So you're wondering why I'm so awesome? I saw it on the news. The same thing again! "bla bla bla.... surgeons transplanted an entire face... first time in history". Yes... they sell the same story again, so what's new? Again, read my entry. They really do what I predicted they would do. And there is nothing new about it at all anyway.

That's all for now, see you.

The dream of the dying paraglider

Last night I had a strange dream that consisted of many different scenes, and these scenes add up to one complete image. But still no idea what it all means, I will type my notes here...

Evening, a paraglider gets hit by lightning. At first, everything looks okay, as if the parachute was lightning-proof. Then suddenly it tangles up and the paraglider falls. Someone next to me says that it's happening in the North, in another state, and that he will call the police.

I'm at a Marit concert, don't get to talk to her though. I was supposed to be brought onto the stage, but I'm very much pregnant (!) and can't go there therefore.

I'm riding my bike directly towards a bus. Both of us stop, we're facing each other, it's a traffic jam. I'm looking into the bus driver's face, at the back of the bus, I can see someone get ready to leave the bus. Does he have a hike/parachute with him? It has something to do with the other things.

Newspaper article. The incident is being explained exactly, even the place is right. It's stated that it was not an accident, that he killed himself on purpose. He did that because of a female singer. He was at the concert. It was also a religious act that he did that suicide.

-> It was suicide. Unnoticed Marit fan? The dream seemed very real. It refers to real-life events: I saw a hike yesterday, and it almost fell to the ground. I was wondering what happened if there was a person hanging by it. I also checked twitter yesterday. Still no new message from Marit. She seems to have given up contact with me.

-> In the dream, I'm not the guy who kills himself. I'm only an observer with a similar story. I'm at the same concert, I encounter the man by chance, I'm present (yet distant) when he dies. A schismatic personality part? Possible. What does it all mean?

-> Dreams are symbolic and use very extreme examples. It's not supposed to be taken word by word.

Still trying to figure it out...

Man gets arrested after death?

An out of control model airplane has hit a man's head in Malaysia and killed him. The 48 year old man was standing on the airfield, controlling his own model, when the accident occured.

[...]

The owner of the deadly model aircraft [...] was arrested.

I had to read this several times before I got it: The person who died and the person who controlled the plane are not identical. With a better choice of words, it could have been less irritating. But there is not enough space for that, right?

Grocery People

I decided to create an overview of the typical characters of grocery-shoppers. Every person who enters a grocery falls into some kind of category. When we are in a grocery, we are not ourselves, the way we would walk through the living room confidently, wearing a bathrobe. No, we are in a different environment and act more like squirrels trying to find food to stash. For the sake of political correctness, I will address every type as "he".

The hesitant customer

He is famous for two things: Blocking you from taking the most desired item from the shelf, only to move away minutes later because he decided not to get what he initially had in mind to buy. Especially common when you are in a hurry.

The slow-moving customer

What makes this one different from the first is that he walks around like a ghost. You might just bump into him around the corner because you had no idea he was there. He really takes his time and always walks in the middle of the aisle. Very annoying in the narrow parts of any grocery.

The slow buyer

Mostly old people. This kind of customer will take a very long time paying for the goods. Something is always wrong. Either he doesn't hear what the price was, or he finds out he doesn't have the exact change, or something else is wrong. Worst option: When he starts talking about the weather, the good old times, or the history of the coin he is picking out of his pocket:"Oh yes, I remember exactly, it was in the year 1969, and we had just landed on the moon. Nixon was the president, who, at the time, we thought would be a good president. It was also the year when the Beatles had their last concert. Where was I? Oh yes, the coin..."

The double encounter customer

No matter what you do, you get to see this customer at least twice during your walk through the grocery.

The acquaintance

You suddenly see a familiar face in the grocery, someone you know from another place: Work, school, anywhere. There is something odd and uncomfortable about it. You either try to avoid the person or, unlucky enough to run into him, try to find small talk topics to escape the awkwardness. It hardly ever works.

The chaser

This hectical customer, for some reason, always happens to appear when he is behind you, and he always tries to go where you are going, just from behind you. So what does that lead to? He chases you through the grocery because you are ahead of him and getting infected by his hurry. You try to give way, you try to let him pass, but the aisle is suddenly too narrow for both of you to fit through. You walk and walk and walk, trying not to run, and your heartbeat goes up. Finally you find a corner where you can let him pass. Trying not to make it obvious, you act as if you were interested in whatever articles you are now facing. While you catch your breath, you turn around and realise you have now been standing at an akward corner for long enough to make everyone notice you (as a guy: toiletries for women; as a woman: the porn section).

The last-minute snatching customer

You see what you've been looking for, and no matter if it's directly in front of you or down the aisle, you will always see this guy's hand touch it first and take it away from you. Most common version: It's the last item of its kind that's still available.

The toucher

Similar to the one above. Your hands meet when you try to get something at the same time. Sometimes awkward, sometimes funny, often leads to romantic situations. A lot more awkward when it's people from the same gender, unless you're into that kind of stuff.

The staring customer

He is the kind of customer that you can always notice looking at you. You walk through the grocery, and he is still looking at you no matter where you go. You are not sure whether it's your imagination or the guy is a real creep. It only makes you think that you want to murder him, it drives you nuts, this stupid staring.

The closing-in customer

You can see a person in front of you, and you just want to walk past that person. But while you are approaching the person, he either backs off or walks toward a shelf, in either case always closing you in between an obstacle and himself, and you have a hard time barely walking past before hitting expensive bottles of wine or an unstable looking array of cans. *sighs* That was a close one again...

The impolite one

Sorry to say, but often a role played by foreigners or morons who didn't go to school very long. He behaves like the grocery is his living room, screams, says stupid things, behaves like the "checker" of the "hood". You can't stand that person, and it makes grocery-shopping a lot less fun.

The phone guy

Related to the one mentioned previously, only with a lot more "HELLLLOOOOO???? HELLO??!?!?!?! Oh yes, sorry, the phone got disconnected" kind of stuff.

The egoist

When the goods are on the conveyor belt, he is the only one who does not help other customers by giving them space to put their goods there, too. He also doesn't move forward so that other people could access it. He only cares about himself and other people behind him have to keep all the heavy stuff in their hands in the meantime. He additionally confuses people by walking back and forth near the cashier, looking for cigarettes or chewing gum.

The stop and go customer

He walks at a normal pace and doesn't show any signs of trouble until BAAAMMMM! He suddenly stopped walking. And you were walking directly behind him and had to hit the brakes full power to not walk into him. How can a person just STOP out of nowhere? This one is the ninja of all annoying customers. You don't see it coming.

The blocker

Often an old grandpa or a mother goddess: It's the kind of customer who will just "wait" somewhere for something to happen. It's either a person who is having a conversation, or someone who needs to re-pack their bags. Something is always going on that causes the person to stand still. If a grocery was a living organism, the blocker is what causes the heart attack.

The nervous one

Maybe the most annoying of all, because he combines several characters in one: The chaser, the stop and go customer, the hesitant one, and so on. The nervous one is usually very fast at walking, very spontaneous in stopping, and very indecisive in... well....deciding. He changes directions very quickly, sometimes makes 180 degree turns, and, if he has traces of the impolite one in him, will blame you if you walk into each other. The nervous one is the Antichrist of shopping. Shopping is supposed to be relaxing, even the music suggests that you take your time, it's all part of the supermarket psychology. The nervous one makes it hard to let go of every day life.

So which grocery person are you?

The problem with names! (part 3)

When there is a headline like the one to above this text (the red arrow pointing at it), you assume that it has to do with Michael Schumacher, because his nickname is visible there. This line says "Glock meets Schumi at the police (station)". Glock is another F1 driver, in case you have no clue what I'm talking about. So two formula one drivers meet at the police station. What did they do? What happened? I am curious to find out.

But before we click on the article, let's think about it... what could be wrong or misleading... hm... one option is that it's not Michael Schumacher but some other Schumacher, for example the guy who rides bikes for a living or Ralf Schumacher, Michael's brother whom we all know and love for his boring news. But one thing is clear, it really is a celebrity Schumacher, one that the media like to call "Schumi". If it was in any way not the real one, they would not address the person like that but use these things here: "..."
So in this line, it should say "Glock meets "Schumi" at police station" instead. Then you notice "okay, so it somehow has to do with Schumi, but it's not actually him, maybe this is still interesting to read". There would have been enough space for that.
But no, as professionals they can't take a risk here. So the real Glock is meeting the real Schumi at the police station, maybe for dangerous driving? Who knows. Let's click on it and...???
No... we got fucked again. Glock was real, the other one was just a police officer whose name is Michael Schumacher. What a poor guy. I mean, being called Michael as a first name is already difficult. Anyone who has that name and has to go to German schools for more than 10 years knows that. But that's just a stupid article I have to say. I mean, somehow it's funny because both Glock and """"Schumacher"""" thought that the other one was playing a stupid joke on them, but that's already okay that way and doesn't require us to read the article thinking it's the real Schumacher.


"Look, let me explain something to you. I'm not Mr. Lebowski. You're Mr. Lebowski. I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. That or His Dudeness... Duder... or El Duderino, if, you know, you're not into the whole brevity thing."

Happy without mathematics - is that possible?

Spelling and grammar are not T-online.de's best friends. And it's no surprise that mathematics are also not among the skills of the author of "Happy without sex - is that possible?", an article there.

How else could it be that this survey here says that, of all the people asked if they can imagine an affectionate relationship that involves cuddling but not sex, "more than a third (32.6 %)" answered accordingly?

You know, if 32.6 per cent is already "more than a third", then I seriously think they didn't ask everyone :p

Needless to say that t-online.de claims that all these people actually live without sex regardless of their answer that they could imagine living without sex - no specification about how long or under which circumstances, age group, gender, anything.

Ralf Schumacher and other stuff

The above picture has text next to it that is supposed to translate to "nobody believed me". But instead, it means "nobody believed with". It's just because of one tiny typo. Next time someone should read the shit again before letting millions of people read it. It's not a blog where they put it, it's one of the most visited pages in Germany.

And oh, yes... again news about Ralf Schumacher. Will he return to formula 1? Will he? I don't think so.

There was another article about him. What does it say? Well, it says some things, but none of them sound promising at all. He is in contact with a team called Stefan GP. But you know what the downside is? That team isn't even listed as one of the competitors of the 2010 season! It's one of the teams on a waiting list in case another team leaves for financial reasons. That's so poor and doesn't sound like a return to F1 at all. The last time I read about Ralf, it sounded like he had even turned down an offer from an active team, and was still bargaining with other teams.

Wow... let me just say this: Either the media or Ralf lie like idiots, or Ralf has the worst skills dealing with other teams, trying to get a contract. No idea how he can fuck up this hard. But what's even more annoying is that he now suddenly says that F1 is not a priority for him any more. Oh? Well, dear Ralf... if that's how you think about it, I don't see any reason why a team would accept you, unsuccessful brother of a legend, long retired driver in your mid 30s. Get out of the headlines!

It should also be noted that only 4 seats are available at this point. And only one of these seats belongs to an established team, the others are new teams still looking for drivers. And the new teams are desperate for drivers who not only don't cost money but also bring money into the team (sponsors). A russian driver who is also at least moderately competitive even offered 15 million dollars for entering F1. I would suggest that's another seat gone. Three seats left, and I don't see any of them being occupied by Ralf. What did I say the first time the topic came up? Yes... Ralf is not returning to F1, end of the story.