Nothing new?! Something new!

Regarding my last post: After the tv broadcast that insulted Singaporeans on the internet, Galileo did not stop. They made the whole idea of insulting other countries into a concept. Hong Kong, Thailand and other countries are being made fun of. I wrote a sarcastic email to the Galileo team, stating that it's wrong what they do and that, at the same time, they would not have the balls to attack certain groups of people like jews or muslims. I told them to stop, and said that I would appreciate a response. There never came one. I figure that's their way of dealing with "don't have any argument left to keep doing what I will be doing for the sake of money, so I will just not answer at all".
Subsequently, I gave up watching this show ever again. It weakens my immune system.

Other things happened nonetheless. There is a new country to welcome to this world. I am not referring to South Sudan:



Yeah...Mekixos football association... where is Mekixo? Sounds like an ancient Aztec city...

Then there was this other unbelievable "thing" that made my jaw drop open and stay open.
I am talking about incompetence that can't be measured. About ignorance. "Ignorance" is a word that originally comes from the latin language, and it's very fitting because it describes an attitude of "not knowing and not wanting to know". This is what happened here. I'll show you.

So the video text of RTL was referring to football matches of the FIFA Women's World Cup in Germany. I had watched the games that they talked about there. One ended "4:0", the previous one "2:1" or "1:2" if you will. I don't mind the order. But what the hell was going on with RTL here?


They stated here that France defeated Sweden, who had previously lost to Germany with 0:1, with a "3:0" result. Now that is absolutely wrong. Canada had lost against Germany 1:2 - and every German knew that because most of us saw that opening match of the German team! I remember clearly how the Germany goalkeeper had a goal scored against her, and I remember how two goals were scored by German football players. The other game between France and Canada ended 4:0, not 3:0. The last goal was scored several minutes before the match was over, so there is no accidental way this could be messed up.

A different tv station had this to say in their video text at the very same moment, and you will see that the results are correct (this tv station also broadcasts the Championship):



Yes, that is a good page! The results are displayed correctly. I didn't think I'd say this, but for video text editors to do things right, I assume they really must know what they are talking about. They must see the things and belong to the station that broadcasts the event.

All this would be bad enough, but this is not enough for RTL. They have to mess up again. In an amazing act of ignorance and unintentional stubbornness, they limbo-dance their way into a new depth of shame under the bar of moronic intelligence. How? A piece of evidence taken the NEXT day shows that they haven't learned to correct their mistake, as this REWRITTEN page shows:



Note that the text is indeed different from the first time. But the results are the same. Whoever made this mistake, he or she did not care and never actually changed anything. The RTL employee is so stupid, if stupidity was measured on a scale from 1 to 100, with "100" being the most stupid, that person would break through the scale at 100 and end up on the other side of the scale again... that's how stupid this is.

That's like permanently saying that "9/11" happened on November 9th. And believe me, that also happens sometimes!!!

Sidenote: Another health myth busted: Salt appearantly has no negative effects on health, as opposed to claims made by scientists earlier. They claimed that salt consumption (extra salt added for flavouring food) causes an increased blood pressure. Now other scientists said that all this was wrong... well, I'm sure this is not the last word spoken in another battle of "who is right?".

A new F1 driver / Singapore enraged

Forget about Drive Through.

Forget about Häkikinnen.

The new driver in Formula 1 is Alonos.

Who? Alonos. Hmm... never heard about that guy. It can't be Alonso, that would mean it's a typo.

So, regarding my last post about intolerance, I have news. Singaporeans on the internet have found out about the tv show that claimed that Singaporeans are nuts. And now they are angry about it.

The bad thing about this is that it helps neither country. The Singaporeans feel enraged and some of them may now think that ALL of us (Germans) think of them in a bad way. And in the comments of the video, they throw it all back ("at least we did not lose 2 world wars" etc.), so this is what you get for intolerance. Thanks again to Pro7, these fuckers.

Let's not stop here. Let's make some things clear so that everyone is pissed:

ALL French people eat snails and are arrogant.

ALL East Europeans are cheap, illegal workers and communists.

ALL Asians always smile and have a bad accent.

ALL Americans are rich, spoilt, have no respect for other people and are superficial.

ALL people speaking Spanish wear funny straw hats, wear a mustache and make salsa music while eating tortillas.

ALL Arabs want to take over the world and spread their "message".

ALL Germans are evil and yes, Hitler is still our "president", at the proud age of 122.

That was just me being sarcastic.

Enjoy Difference - Start Intolerance

Pro Sieben marketed their "tolerance day" big some weeks ago. It was not a big thing in the end. It was supposed to be about tolerance towards other cultures, but there was little impact that day on tv. Some stuff about prejudices, that's all.

Now, some weeks later, they go back to normal, and sacrifice their self-declared integrity at the altar of capitalism. Whatever it takes to make an entertaining show at low cost, they will do it.

So there was this show called Galileo, an "edutainment" thing. That means it looks like a science format, but in the end they only show you stuff that is weird but doesn't heal cancer or AIDS. While National Geographic shows you the most amazing animals, Galileo shows you the biggest pizza in the world, or "fake checking" youtube videos of cars with burning wheels or a guy jumping out of a swimming pool and landing on his feet.

The other day, they made fun of Singapore. "Singaporeans are bonkers" could be the literal translation. Then they did what they were good at: Taking a few things out of context and making them look like they are absolutely normal in that country. I am not talking about the usual suspects like laws in Singapore, caning in Singapore etc. The Galileo guy entered the scene at the airport and, "not having to look very far", he already saw the first "weird" thing. A woman at a store holding something that looks like a gun at people's heads. But it's only a fever detector, to see if people are sick. So they exchanged a couple of words, and then, for the first time, Galileo labelled the Singaporeans as weird. Because, at least that's the impression, EVERY DAMN STORE in Singapore has people at the entrance checking if you have a fever.

Next thing on the list: There is a building called Nirvana Memorial where dead bodies go after being burned. The place is full of Bhudda statues with laser beams, a monk who got imported from China and paid to perform prayers, and everything is expensive and fancy. And again they put the stamp on Singapore: How crazy, and how common in Singapore. Yeah... every Singaporean pays several thousand bucks to have their loved ones in a good state after death. It's not like they can't afford it, right?

Next stop: This weird cage thing. Even though I've been to Singapore twice, I must have missed the hundreds of bird cages that hang down from ceilings at EVERY corner in Singapore. And EVERY Singaporean likes to sit below the cages. They are up there so high so that the birds won't be stressed from people walking around. Oh yeah.... and people love birds so much in Singapore... sure.

Last thing to mention: SPI, Singapore paranormal investigators. A bunch of people that I have already heard about... cool. They are looking for ghosts, even with ghost-buster-like devices that measure electrical currents. Okay... in the end, they never find a ghost and the guy from Galileo tricks them with his cell phone that makes a spooky sound. Those stupid Singaporeans. They are so weird and silly, all of them. And all it takes to prove that is 5 Singaporeans out of 4 million... checkmate.

Well, I happen to live with someone who is from Singapore, and just to make sure I wasn't wrong, I asked her about this stuff. And to put things right: The fever checking was a useful method in times of the SARS disease spreading, and it was only for a couple of months. It's NOT common. Nirvana Memorial is largely unknown. Bird cages high up in the air are a hobby of just some Singaporeans, dogs are still a lot more popular as pets. And PSI can hardly represent the whole population.

What I hate the most is that Galileo sells prejudices for facts. They even said in the beginning that Asians always smile. Yeah. And then they take a couple of Singaporeans and draw the conclusion that all that these people do is also what every Singaporean, hell no, every Asian does!

I get cramps in my stomach imagining that in other countries in the world, people might see this kind of stuff on tv where all Germans are judged by the fact that 10 Germans go to a " who has the longest moustache" contest. Or wear Lederhosen and drink beer with a Wiener Schnitzel at the Oktober Fest. Not ALL Germans are like that. Please!

Even more absurd, after that part about Singapore, they came up with their next experiment: What you can glue together with gummi bears: Trucks, people to walls, etc. I am asking you: Who are the ones who are bonkers here? It's ridiculous.

I am not taking Galileo very seriously, but I was angry. I am not asking for much from an edutainment show, but if you try to make entertainment with educational stuff, at least sell the things that are entertaining but at least TRUE and free of prejudices!!!

I have had enough. I think I'll sit back now, let my moustache grow, get a beer, a Weisswurst and then I'll put on my Lederhosen, take my German Shepherd into the woods and complain about the negroes and the good old days when the Führer was still around (sarcasm!!!).

Extremes in the media

My first point:

In the video text on tv, there was this headline:

Radioactivity reaches Europe! (Yes, the exclamation mark was there)

When I went to the page where the text was, it said that some radioactivity was detected in Iceland, but that experts said there was no reason to panic. Then why do they make the headline sound so dangerous and stressful? Besides, Iceland is not exactly in the heart of Europe, and it is only geographically Europe.

What's next? Radioactivity in every hospital worldwide? Oh yes, in every x-ray place there is radioactivity. Panic!!!

My second point:

Then what about the vocabulary? It's spring in Europe now and temperatures rise. But sometimes, it's only temporary and that can cause a drop by 10° C within a couple of days. Why do the media call it a "coldness shock"? It's not a "shock" when the temperatures go from 12° C to 2° C, especially when everyone has been used to sub-zero temperatures for almost half a year.

My third point:

The most ridiculous thing in the past months in my opinion was the way banks promote their services. There was a time, about 3 to 5 years ago, when it was still possible to get a normal bank account with an interest rate of about 5 per cent. Nowadays, it's really bad. It's never even 3 per cent. At the same time, banks keep using the same advertisement phrases like "miraculous interest rates", "amazing interest rates", "lucky", "incredible" and so on.

What's so incredible about a 2.2% interest rate?

Let's do the math: If you have 10 000 euros in your bank account for a whole year - which is already a lot of money to not put your hands on - then you will have 220 euros increase at the end of a 12 months period. How is that incredible? Not to forget that most people don't have that much money.

If you have one million euros , it will be a hundred times more: 22 000 euros. But you know what the catch is? People who already have that much money know better ways to increase their wealth. And using such a crappy bank account is not the way to get there.

My advice: Whether it's advertising or causing panic: Once in a while, leave out all the extremes and stick with the unemotional truth. That makes it easier to inspire an emotion the next time you REALLY want people to be impressed.

What's up with the media?

What happened here? Several typing mistakes in one name, while it's perfectly possible to write the name correctly several times on a different page of the video text.

But let's move away from this. I notice a new tendency in the news, and it's about video text again, so the pictures above fit.

The video text is probably known in most countries, it's a service on tv that you can enable with your remote (in most cases, some tv devices don't have it). Then there are information pages in the video text, and it's like a newspaper on screen.

The one thing I noticed recently is how unsatisfying it can be when the people who type the news are faster than the people who read them. I have to examples to explain what I mean:

1. Some time ago, Robert Kubica from Poland, a race driver, had a bad accident which will stop him from competing in Formula One for many months. I had not heard about this the previous evening, which was a Sunday. The next morning, Monday at around 6am, I checked the video text and was shocked to read things about Kubica. But what I read was not "Kubica injured after crash yesterday" or "Kubica had an accident on Sunday at xx o'clock". What I read was "F1 pilots worried about Kubica's condition" or "Season over for Kubica". Even worse, in the text, there was no indication what exactly had happened or when the accident occured. It took me a lot of time to find out that the accident had happened less than 24 hours ago.

2. Felix Magath, coach of football team Schalke 04, was to be fired. They had been talking about this for a while. But then from one day to the next, the video text mentioned that a new coach was going to be in the team very soon, but the second in command coach (the so far assistant) was going to train the team until then. But then again, no word about Magath having been fired yet. I had to change to a different tv channel to find out that Magath was expected to be fired on THAT very same day that I was checking the video text at 6:30 am.

What we learn from this is that everything needs to be faster. It's really annoying when news media only throw around keywords, but don't even refer to anything that happened before or is not even 24 hours old. It's hard to follow. On the other hand, when there's a disaster such as the one currently happening in Japan, the news reports loop over and over for hours, you get the same stuff replayed all the time.

Another thing that bugs me is the lack of being neutral in the news. I notice more and more often how people who present the news use words that are filled with opinions. Stuff like "the sick leader Gaddafi" or "he slaughters his people". I mean, sure, he does that stuff and he seems sick and wrong in the head, but since when is it okay that the guys and girls on the news tell us what to think? What's next? Normal politicians who don't kill people are stupid or annoying, and after that, the media tell us who to vote etc.

I just believe that it's important to know what's going on and not be manipulated. For example, if a tv station makes a poll about "should all nuclear reactors be shut down", and you have to call in order to vote, then you get a 88 per cent "yes" vote. BUT: If it's a representative poll (that means that you call the people and don't ask those to call who feel most outraged), then you only get less than 60 per cent. But many people don't know that these differences exist, and they take the results of polls or the opinion-making of the media for granted. Manipulation is everywhere.

Last but not least, I hope that Japan will be okay. I usually don't care so much when natural disasters happen, because they just do happen anyway, but in Japan's case... it's just a country I care a little more about. They have contributed a lot to our standard of living, and they are cool. So yeah... I hope things get better there.

New stuff about men and women

I was lucky to be in a shop today where the radio was on. They said that scientists found out that couples without children are generally happier than couples with children. And that couples with children claim that having children is so great, not because they think it's true but because they are unhappy and want to pretend. Even as a "belief system", to make themselves think they are happy.

So what do we learn? Don't trust what people say. Couples without children really are happier, and children being so wonderful is only another myth. Really, I can't stand the constant noise of children.

Speaking of child noise: The German government has passed new laws and insists that noise from kindergartens and other places is not a reason to sue. Noise from children is considered natural and should be bearable. Well... yeah. That's just their way of trying to make the country more child-friendly. It does not change the fact that children are very annoying.

On top of that, I would like to add that not the normal noise of children is a problem, it is also the way children behave now compared to decades ago.

Some decades ago, parents were a lot stricter and harsh. Children were not the "equal partners" that parents nowadays see in them. Children had to adapt to whatever was going on around them, especially in public.

Look at today: Not only does the education of children at home suck, there is also an enormous amount of hypersensation, if that's the word. So many commercials, so much capitalism, so much BIG and CRAZY stuff going on. Spongebob, Spongebob, lah lah lah, loud loud loud. In cartoon series, everything is so damn loud all the time. It's no surprise that children immitate this behaviour.

When I grew up, I watched the smurfs on tv. And they were pretty quiet. They were at times in fear when they had to run away from the bad guy, but:

Can you imagine Papa Smurf screaming like he has a cactus in his ass, his head spinning like a helicopter blade and then exploding? Please imagine it!

I'm just comparing back then with today, alright? You get the idea.

Really, this is what children are like... but now to something completely different.

What else is new... Oh yeah. Looks like women are AGAIN not as good as everyone makes us think. You know what it has been like. Women are always better than men. More loyal, sweet, trustful, romantic, always better than evil men who only cheat (especially if they are latinos).

Now something came up. A new t-online.de article. "The more beautiful a women, the shorter the relationships". Psychologists found out that relationships last longer if the man is the more beautiful person in the relationship. Because then, women will "accept" that they are well off and not leave the man. If the woman is more beautiful than the man, the woman will still try to find someone better. That's so interesting because the article also pretty much says that men don't do these things. I mean... relationships are not shorter just because the guy is better looking. So... now who are the bad ones?

I'm really pissed off that men are always the ones who have the bad name in society. It's always this "men are like that" or "men are assholes" attitude in our society. But it's interesting when the facts suddenly say other things... oh well, that's it for now.

EA Sports sucks except for one game

Whoever doesn't want to read about manager games, don't read.

Today I played the game "Fifa Soccer Manager" again. In my life it probably ranks in the TOP 3 when it comes to playing time... I have spent many, many hours playing this game. I played it in the night when Lady Diana died, I even remember that.

I do not remember why or when I stopped playing the game, but I do know that it's not the common reason I usually have when I stop playing a game - which is that the game sucks and has fatal flaws. No, Fifa Soccer Manager didn't have so many bad flaws. A few bugs that could make it crash, but at least you could get to know these bugs and avoid them.

It's weird but I have to admit: This is the best football manager game I ever played so far. It's the only EA Sports game that doesn't suck completely. And that's a testimony of how bad the games are nowadays.

It's not just the usual tendency that all games today have: That the graphics matter more than the gameplay. With EA Sports, it's a totally different dimension. They use the same programming code every year, and every year they come up with another version of the same manager game. Just the cover and some minor changes are new. But at the same time, the games are never free of bugs. Which is the worst part. Some of the games are absolutely unplayable. They either crash whenever they like to or the AI takes control of the whole game. In one game I even noticed that, whenever your team scores, the other team suddenly does magic, dribbles around your defenders in impossible ways and makes a revenge goal just one minute later. It's not a coincidence, and I checked online and everyone had the same problem.

Then another reason why EA Sports is a bitch is because they hold the official licences of the football teams in an exclusive way. No other companies can release football manager games here. There is a football manager series made by Sega that I can only get as an imported version from the UK on amazon. But I didn't try that yet because it's expensive and I already had my share of dissatisfaction when it comes to manager games.

It's pretty hard to find good manager games. I also notice that some manager games are made by the wrong people. When I watch Formula 1, the tv station presents its own manager game there. But I don't even give in to that idea because I know that this tv station, RTL, will never make a game that has the depth I am looking for.

Fifa Soccer Manager is a great game for its time. It starts in the 1996/1997 season, that's how old it is. The menu design is brilliant. It's a little sad that there is no proper youth section, like youth camps. And there are no player images, but at least a solid 3d engine that doesn't crash all the time or do unfair things.

Managers that are newer than Fifa Soccer Manager suck because of their complicatedness and eagerness to crash. Games prior to the release of Fifa Soccer manager suck because they are too simple. For example, the game "Sensible Soccer" has player values in pounds, but there is no freaking way I can tell what the abilities of the players are?! Lol....

Okay, that's it for now.

Six cases of hypocrisy and conflicting claims

1. Heating and venting

Some sources say that you should open the windows in your house at least four times a day and let fresh air in for about 10 minutes. The experts who say this also say that the interior does not cool down too much in that period of time. In my experience though, even 5 minutes of having open windows causes the whole place to cool down completely. This causes me to shut down the heating equipment for the time that I open windows, as I do not want to waste energy.

On the other hand, other experts say that you should never turn off the heater. They say that it takes a lot more energy to heat up the whole house again than to keep maintaining an average warmth. Well...how can I please both? I have to fulfill my duties as they are stated in the rental contract (opening windows a lot to keep the walls free from fungal matter). I also do not want to increase costs and destroy our beautiful planet by heating up the whole forest around me unnecessarily.

2. Fridge - what to do?

Some experts say that you should put your food into the fridge immediately when you decide to keep it. They say that bacteria will develop if you let the food cool down first, the quality of your food will go down and your health will be at risk.

Other experts say that food must cool down first. The reasons are energy consumption of the fridge, the durability of the cooling device and the environmental aspect.

I would like to add that not only do these conflicting claims exist. They are also presented as "must comply" facts, the media makes you panic. Either you are the Adolf Hitler of pollution or you die of bacterial infection.

How can I please both? What is the right thing to do in the first place?

3. Breakfast - Diet factor or just another myth?

For many years, experts have been claiming that breakfast is important not only for a healthy lifestyle but also for a good diet. They kept saying that you will eventually burn more calories if your body already starts off well in the morning with a good breakfast that activates your system.

As I read just some days ago, this is another myth that goes down the drain... just like the vitamin C myth. Scientists found out that no such effect exists and that the calories you get when you have breakfast are the same calories that add up to your usual calory consumption as any other meal. Whether you eat the food in the morning or any other time of the day makes no difference, it is just another meal with a number of calories that you eat.

4. Shellfish - Kill or torture?

We live in an era of political correctness full of animal rights movements. But it baffles me what kind of things I sometimes see and hear on tv.

Some experts say that lobsters and other shellfish should be dead before they are cooked. Cooking animals that are still alive is, according to them, a torture and will cause a lot of pain. They recommend that you kill the lobster by severing the spinal area with a knife. That sounds pretty much okay for me, the animal does not need to suffer and between the killing and the cooking, only seconds pass.

But then again, what do I need to hear on this tv show? Let me quote:"Shellfish are best thrown into boiling water alive". When I heard this sentence, I expected some kind of "but..." sentence. But there was no "but".

I am not sure what the pain perception of animals is like, but there is no explanation why these animals should not be killed quickly and free of pain. There is no way to argue that the meat would not be fresh or anything.

5. Fur coat - Serious problem or hypocrisy propaganda?

On the radio, they talked about fur coats. What I did not like from the start was how biased the radio hosts were. They talked about the fact that some clothes are made from animals and that it is impossible to tell so due to lack of labelling. Instead of asking neutrally what people thought, they asked in this "Is that not crazy, what do you think" kind of way. And then, of course many people fell for it and came up with their criticism against clothing companies (that are often from China and do not care what some suburban chicks here think). Many listeners who called vowed to do the "lighter test". That is a test in which you use a cigarette lighter on a piece of clothing that you cut off the coat and then judge by the smell whether it smells like plastic or organic hair.

I do not mind people voicing their opinion. But the hypocrisy in my eyes is that the same people who are totally outraged about all this have no problem eating sausage after steak after chop every day. Besides, the clothing industry follows the same trends as every other industry, and even if it is a little provocative to say, people wear what they deserve to wear (in other words: If they want to follow the trend set up by a fashion designer who does not care about animals but does care about "good looks", then that is what they get).

6. Decade, Century, Millennium - How do you count from 1 to 10?

Do you remember the year 2000? Back in 1999, everyone was crazy about the change of the millennium. Yes, everyone wanted to welcome the new millennium that started on January 1st 2000. There was lots of talking about potential disasters, the end of the world, computer crashes and so on. There was one player in the game who was always around: The media. Oh, how they loved to talk about this endlessly.

Well, what am I going for here? I will tell you. I spent the change from 2010 to 2011 in Singapore. And there was something that almost went unnoticed. Almost! But I noticed. The tv channels were very proud to present (and insist on) the start of a new decade. Yes. When the new year came, they proudly said that "many people celebrated the beginning of a new year and a new decade". And they made sure everyone understood: The new decade starts now, not 2010.

Now let us go into the specifics. It is technically true that a new decade, century or millennium always starts with a year that has "1" at the end. For example 1981, 1701, 2011 and so on. The reason is that the year Jesus Christ was born is considered the year 1 after Christ. The year before is the year 1 before Christ. There is no year 0. Technically.

So... here comes the hypocrisy: How can you celebrate the new millenium on December 31st 1999, and then, 11 years later, you suddenly go back to the geeky-nerdy mode and claim that "nah nah nah nah naaahhh naaaahh... you are wrong!" the year 2011 marks the spot? How can media people act like they are nerds with calculators in their hands and cause everyone this stupid "We are better than you" feeling?

I will say this: If people are so happy to get the facts right, then they should do their crusade in 1999 and not 2010. You know, there were people who had the "courage" to bring the issue up. In an episode of the X-Files, I remember how Scully said that the new millennium actually starts in 2001 and not 2000, but she was then told that nobody likes nerds. How true.

I would have loved to see tv channels boast about the new millennium at the end of 2000, approaching 2001. Oh man, they would have been the laughing stock of the whole world.

Side note: The past decade was therefore 11 years long if you judge by the way the media celebrate new years. Wow... and by the way, if you care to know what I think: My decades always go like this: The 80s, the 90s, the 2000s and so on. I do not care about this 2011 shit.

Another agenda against men

Crying babies - why only the mama gets up.
What takes away the mother's sleep leaves him unimpressed. According to a survey, the car is more important to fathers than their own baby.

This is only the opening part of the article, the part that you are supposed to click on to read the article itself. When you read only the part I put here, you will think that men are cruel beings who don't care much about the baby. This is just another trick to make the customer check out the article.

What is the truth behind the article? I will tell you. The part that t-online.de interpreted as guys caring more about a car than their own child is actually something totally different. In the article, the authors state the top 10 disturbances that make men and women wake up from their nightly sleep. And each of them has different reasons to wake up. One thing that both have in common is that snoring is in the fourth spot for both of them. Now let's tie it all up. Why do men "care" more about cars which makes them so selfish? Well... the number one thing that makes men wake up is a car alarm! Does that mean they care more about cars? No. Even I wake up from a car alarm once in a while and I don't even own a car. I don't care about cars, I'm not interested in them, I don't even know any of the technical stuff.

If I was a man (which I am) and wanted to discredit women by using this article, I would do it in a similar fashion. I would claim that women "don't care" about things that make their partners wake up. I would justify that with the statistics. Men wake up a lot more from car alarms, whistling wind and buzzing flies than women. Therefore, women have little sympathy for men, ignore their feelings, can live totally without them and hate them with all their heart!!!

Okay, I hope you understand I am not serious here and just trying to prove the point. Happy new year, don't get fooled by the media as they are becoming more desperate each year to bring you top stories.

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.