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.

End of year post

I'm totally confused about 2009. I don't know if it was good or bad. There were parts of it that were good, especially the first 3 months. There were parts that were bad, annoying, and neverending. Sometimes the year was also just another year.

I can't think of any terribly bad moments. Sure, sometimes the stress was extreme and that was very hard to take. But somehow I'm at least still alive. I think the reason why I don't look back at 2009 and see an amazing year is because of an anger issue that has come up. I have been fighting with authorities for about half a year now and it has caused a lot of pain and impatience on my side. I can't just act like everything is normal and go on with my life as if it's two different things: My life and my visits to this place. Every time I face having to go to this place again, my mind gets very negative. I don't want this. But to stop the bad thoughts, I would have to stop even going there.

There are no specific events in this year that I would like to focus on. I see it more as a whole thing this time and not several different aspects determining the value of the year. It was the first time I spent a whole year (January until December) with one company. My contract will reach deep into 2010 and hopefully beyond that.

Somehow the look into the future is very cloudy and foggy. I notice that I could look at the glass half empty or half full, but somehow, I prefer half empty. There are good things that are supposed to happen in 2010. But I first want to wait and see if they happen, and when they do, if I also get what I expect from them. I also have to see about my contract and what comes after that. If things turn out the way I deserve (not just the way I expect), then I think it can be a good year. But I also expect challenges and a difficult time dealing with my new life.

It's also the end of a decade, and I always seem to forget that. I remember how my parents didn't wake me up in 1989 even though I had asked them to. I missed that transition. In 1999, I was of course awake, and it was the end of a millenium. In 1979, I was not even born.

Many of us will remember how we were looking forward to 2000. It doesn't even feel so long ago, does it? Maybe it has to do with the way things have not changed. When you compare 2000 with 1990, the music, clothes and way people act is different. The cars are different. Microwaves, vaccuum cleaners and all that stuff are different. But now, what's different? The music from the beginning of the decade doesn't sound so much different, at least not so different compared to the other decade beginnings. We have reached the end of the scale when it comes to improvement and development. There were no major innovations that I can recall, at least none that are used in everyday life. Pain-free dental care is still in its childhood shoes and never wanting to grow out of it. And you, chocolate with few calories who is still in development, I'll see you when my children are in their teens.
The internet improved, youtube, wikipedia and all the others only came to their full potential when the decade was already half way over. But that's like talking about windscreen wipers as a new sensation when it's only part of the car, which is the real sensation.

The new decade will be a decade that sees me going from 26 up to 35. That is, if I can pull myself together. We will see crazy years like 2013, 2017 and other odd years. It sounds very dark, not so nice and fresh like 2000 or 2008. But it's not what matters.
Hm... the sinking of the titanic will be 100 years old in that decade, I think. And lots of other stuff. Many people turning 100 years old. Whatever.

Not sure how to welcome the new year. It's like seeing a friendly face while expecting to be deceived and getting one's arm broken once you reach out with your hand. I will keep my eyes open and stay very suspicious of the new year.

In total, the decade was good, and the year 2009 was just strange. 2009 was really bizarre. I mean, when you only look at the small events, it should have been really cool, meeting Marit again and all that stuff, but then it's still weird how my feelings can be so mixed.

For the new year, I wish for a little less annoyance, hope that my sanity stays strong, and I hope to become rich for no reason. That's all.

Ralf Schumacher - here we go again

I was more than annoyed when t-online.de released another article with speculations of Ralf Schumacher's possible return to Formula 1. Keeping in mind that all the speculation is only worth talking about because Michael Schumacher will drive in F1 in 2010 makes it kind of sad. What kind of career is that when you always have to rely on your brother to make your own career work?

When I read the article, there were actually some things that surprised me:

1. The article contained information that can not be labelled as "shit" unless it's all a lie.

2. There is new information.

3. The circumstances have changed.

So what is it that's worth saying about this? Well, one thing first, a return of Ralf Schumacher is still something I doubt a lot. Two years absence of a driver who won 6 races in his 11 years career and is going to turn 35 years old next summer, Last podium finish in 2006, last win in 2003, that doesn't sound very inviting for team owners. Unless he wants to help a team that need development aid.
The things that have changed since the last time we heard about Ralf are that there are more teams in F1 than last season, that means that even if all drivers who drove in 2009 stayed in F1 (and not even that is the case), there would still be seats left to be filled by newcomers and comeback drivers. Plus, Ralf already had an offer from a new team, plus he rejected it. Sounds like someone who is very sure of himself.

Ralf said it's not about money, and it's also not about signing the next best deal. He wants to see a perspective. There are three teams of the established, successful teams, that still have one seat per team left to fill. And the article suggests that Ralf Schumacher's name is being discussed internally. I'm not really sure what to make of this, though. Discussing lots of names is not a guarantee for a return. I also think that these teams would rather choose a driver who drove in 2009, or at least a driver who drove the latest cars, either as a test driver or maybe someone who left a team recently for whatever reason. There are still some drivers that come to mind before Ralf pops up. I'm very doubtful. I would give it more thought if only the media didn't push the topic so hard.

In the end, it reminds me very much of the swine flu: You hear about it so much, it's so damn important, be warned, be warned, but in the end, everyone says it's only a stupid flu. We get so desensitised by crazy news that we stop caring about the things that might actually turn out to be true. I don't know when, but there will be a point when something bad will happen only because of how the media didn't know their limits.

Totally denying a return of Ralf Schumacher after Michael signing a 3 year contract just some days ago would be wrong. There were other old drivers who have been speculated to return. But it just seems a little odd, you know. Considering the fame of Ralf's older brother, the speculations about Ralf himself always seemed very much out of proportion compared to Michael, who was often in the center of speculation but it never seemed forced but rather according to what was really about to happen eventually.

You can compare it to movies. The hype about Michael is like the hype for a Steven Spielberg movie. You know there has to be a hype, but at least you are not being fooled. Ralf is more the Roland Emmerich type. Lots of explosions, lots of patriotism, lots of drama, but in the end, you once more get fooled into seeing another dull movie drowning in CGI effects.

Stupid reasons for having a child

First, we deal with mistakes that can be made in a marriage. How many mistakes can T-online.de find to ruin a marriage? Let's find out:


Six mistakes. Let's click on the article:


Seven mistakes. So let's click on the list:

Six mistakes. That's very consistent.

Now that we got this out of the way, let's talk about children. Having children of one's own is a very personal decision that many couples have to go through. However, there seem to be people who go on a crusade and try to talk others into having children by writing books about it. Again I found something on T-online.de that annoyed me.

The article was called "12 reasons to love babies". But what's confusing enough is that the article itself mentions a book that says something like "101 reasons to love babies". So what do you want? 12 reasons or all 101 of them? Make up your mind, dammit!

The article writer decided to go with only 12 reasons, and he or she had the courtesy to pick a variety of them, and didn't shy away from including some of the dumbest in the list. I will list them here and make my comment on each of them:

1. Because you learn from babies not to take yourself so seriously:

Babies show their parents that it's not about oneself (how ironic, keeping in mind that babies only care about themselves). They teach their parents responsibility for other people [...], they scream at mama and papa if they want something and cuddle with them when they did well. Author Katrin Knoppe is right: "Egocentrics can't be good parents".

Well here is my comment: FUCK YOU! The most egocentric, egomaniac and egoistic people are children, nobody else! Not only does the author turn around the argument and make a fool of herself in her argumentation, she also uses the egoism suggestion as a dirty means. Why doesn't she just say "everyone who doesn't want children is worse than Hitler".

2. Because you have made your babies yourself:

We have thrown our genes together and made a human being. Your wackiness and my sensibility are in this being. It has my eyes and your humour. Your hair and my stubbornness. Katrin Knoppe knows that this human will connect you and your partner forever. However, it is an entirely special and unique person.

Mother Teresa, um... I mean Katrin Knoppe is right. Yes. How beautifully said. Give her a medal for that. How romantic. But far away from the truth. While it is biologically true that you've given your crappy genes to yet another generation that might decide not to have children, and despite the fact that only a small fragment of yourself is still left in that big genetic pool that will be in the generation after that, you have successfully applied the most animalistic, instinct-driven reason for having a child. Good luck explaining to your child the reason for its existence with Darwinism, evolution and all that scientific stuff. Self-confidence, here we come!
Besides, is it just me or is this "connect you and your partner forever" the worst thing ever uttered? How many people get divorced again? Hello???

3. Because babies bring people together:

Most of all, babies bring the family closer together. The fresh new parents now enter the realm of responsible decisions. Thus, they come closer to their own parents who have been there for a while already. When raising a child, there will be moments of hurt and insecurity, because one knows it's about something really important. And who do you ask in such moments? Certainly not colleagues but family and friends.

You know... to me this sounds like this: When you're tired of realising that other couples who don't have children spend all weekend getting drunk and partying, you ask some suckers for help who are stupid enough to take care of your annoying little vermin so that you can have at least one weekend a month away from it and try to save your ruined marriage.
I'm serious, read it again, it translates word for word!

4. Because babies are not resentful:

Babies quickly take away their parents' bad conscience when they have made a mistake. Even though one has screamed at the baby and it cried a lot, everything is fine after some minutes of calming it down. This innocent love should never be exploited.

This part touches two topics without even attempting to. Which is funny. First it says that babies don't hold a grudge, which is partly wrong, and then, with only one sentence, it hints at the possibility of parents manipulating the child. Does that ring a bell? Well yes, it's something that all parents do. Never exploit innocent love? Too bad it happens everywhere. Religion is only the most heavy of those exploits. There are many more ways of exploiting the child that are less heavy.
Coming back to forgiveness of the child. If you scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down, scream at it, calm it down... it still ends up very fucked up. Just because the child displays calmness doesn't mean it's perfectly okay. It's not like a video game that loses all memory once you switch it off. It still remembers things on a subconscious level.

5. Because babies speak a foreign language that you will still understand:

I will spare you the details of this reason. It's only about babies being so cute and parents being curious about the baby language. I don't get it why people should make babies for that. If it's only for the cuteness, that's pure egoism. Go to any childcare centre and you can experience it on your own if you're so interested in baby language.

6. Because babies can cheer up about the same thing for the 1000th time:

"I've seen it all, I've been here before, I've tried it before, it's alright". Typical reactions of adults. A baby has nothing left for this kind of hype for change. Babies can be happy about the same toy over and over - as if it was the first time. For babies, life is rarely a routine, instead it's constant fascination and unending astonishment.

Do you realise the idealisation of babies in this paragraph? She got really carried away when she came up with this image of babies. I'm not saying it's not true, but she only shows us the cute side of babies once again. And again, she brings up another point without even noticing it. You wonder what it is? Check the part about the adult person. What does a baby become? A child, a teenager, an adult. At some point, you can't excite your offspring any more. Babies are like puppies: They are the children of adult beings and they eventually become adult beings. The risk is only seeing the cute phase and never even thinking about the bad times that will come.

7. Because you are finally the number one for another person: (oh no, now we're really diving into the shit)

Babies are often completely focussed on their parents, especially the mother. And they will then only be calmed down by the mother. "Nobody else, not even daddy, has a chance then". The unconditional trust that the own baby offers, gives the mother the good feeling to prove that she is worth the baby's love.

This blows my mind on so many levels. This is the reason, this! This is the reason why guys like me don't want children. I'm not talking about the child's way of acting, it's only a child. I'm talking about the mother. And do you notice that even the author loses her objectivity here (not that she ever had one to begin with). Even the author talks in this motherly way here. Okay, let's tear this apart step by step:
The headline: You are finally the number one for another person. I take this as a direct insult against me as a man. Who says that we don't love our wives and accept them as number one? Are we only after our career? Why do we not count?
Then the rest: Okay, fine, so the baby will focus on the mother, but only because she spends more time with the baby. I bet there are at least some babies that will only be calmed down by the father. But in general, the bond between the mother and the baby is so damn strong, holy and godly that the guy could just go and hang himself. If it wasn't for the money, he could just leave, seriously. He has nothing left to do except for help the mother in fulfilling parental duties.

8. Because you always rely on your instincts:

More motherly bullshit. Katrin Knoppe says don't rely on books too much, follow your instincts. How ironic that this comes from a person who writes a book. That's like a rapist telling other rapists not to rape.

9. Because the word "fear" gets a totally new meaning:

"Being a Mum or Dad is hell. From the day of procreation, you are in a state of fear (are you sure? I think you're still pretty much satisfied in that very moment, hehe). Fear of the life of your child", Knoppe says. Being overly careful becomes the standard procedure. And that is understandable, because nothing reaches as far as the love for one's own child - except maybe the fear for the child's well-being.

I'm sorry, did we drift off a little here, I thought this was supposed to be a book that gives reasons to have children, not to avoid having children.

10. Because you will be treated preferentially:

No doubt, there is a "baby card" you can play. In many areas you will be treated better when having a child with you. Because everyone gets so soft and careful when seeing a woman with a pram or because people think you're having a hard time being a parent anyway, also financially. Of course it's not correct playing the "baby card". On the other hand, the fact that you can play it shows that society is aware of the special needs that parents have.

So the reason for having a baby is that you can get your shopping done faster, and you can talk at the entrance of a grocery with another mother while your child drools on the floor and nobody will say a word, even if the child blocks the way? Damn you! Why does the author talk about egoism and then use that same egoism for her own agenda? Fuck the baby card, and fuck you, Frau Knoppe.

11. Because nothing goes as planned:

Babies act as they like (finally something I agree with). Parents are most of the time busy dealing with the unexpected. That can be pretty stressful (you're damn right). What it never leads to, though, is boredom (objection! there is boredom in bed!). Instead of routine and planning, spontaneity and small mishaps rule everyday life. And thanks to the baby, parents learn how to deal with surprises.

Another argument that's supposed to support the pro-child agenda. Honestly, I don't really get it. Sure, people who go on parties every weekend, travel a lot and like the thrill of an exotic and exciting life, they will somehow like the fact that it never gets boring. But they are also the kind of people who can do well without children. Other people, like me, don't want children exactly for the reason that nothing is predictable. Instead of rushing to the hospital every 5 days, I can just watch Die Hard on my tv, that's exciting enough for my taste. And to learn how to deal with surprises? No thanks, I think I can just survive the heart attack I get when my girlfriend gives me an unexpected present. So there is no need for any more training on this.

12. Because the first birthday is not the end: (well, at least in most cases)

Everything that's been difficult surely won't stop after the first birthday. It will continue being difficult and many obstacles will be in the way of the child and the parents. "There's nothing nice without anything difficult". But seeing how your child learns to walk and talk, how it goes to kindergarten, school, reaches puberty and grows up slowly, that's definitely worth it.

Unless.... you get divorced, then it's just fucking hell. OR if the baby is disabled. OR if it dies and your spouse never gets over the pain of the loss, no matter how much you love him / her. OR if it says "I hate you" and runs away to become a drug addict. The list goes on. But keep bringing up examples of a fairytale childhood, I'm sure everyone is going to be as lucky as you. You, dear Mrs Knoppe, have done a good job. And the most surprising thing about you is that, instead of making more babies (although I don't know if you have any), you even have time to write books for people who are not sure if they want children. People like my parents. And that makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Dear Mrs Knoppe... I know you are a businesswoman, trying to cash in on a popular subject. But please bear in mind that not all people are made for this "job". Dealing with parental stress is natural, but there are also other things that are natural. Scientists found out that relationships usually only last until the first baby is there, and keeping the relationship alive after that is hard work. Some decades and centuries ago, people had to stay together because the woman was totally dependent on the guy. These times are over, and this will lead to more single fathers and mothers, with chaotic results for the children. I warn you, Mrs Knoppe, do not cause the births of miserable children just because you think of people who don't want children as egoistic, selfish, unnatural traitors of human genetics and saboteurs of the German economy ("children are our future" etc.). I ask all of you out there: Think first, then have children. It's no big deal if you fail in your relationship, but if you give a small child a bad childhood, then you will be blamed.

Names - the most complicated words of all

What do the following celebrity names have in common:

Michael Jacksen
Barack Obamo
Tiger Woulds
Madonni

Answer: They are horribly misspelled.

I would be punished if I made such mistakes while being paid to write articles about such people. But the funy thing is: It doesn't happen to these people.


Mailmen get punished if letters go missing.

Servicepeople get punished if they behave incorrectly towards customers.

Politicians get punished if they make comparisons with Jews or Hitler.


But two groups of people only get punished too late or not at all: People in the financial sector and media people.

The other day, there was a show where a young girl sang a Marit Larsen song, and the host of the show pronounced the name clearly as "Marit Larson". Why is it that someone who presents a show with pop music does not have to know the name of a singer that was #1 for 5 weeks this summer? Why? Are they only chosen for looks and charme? That's the problem in Germany, I think. Even the "[country] idol" winners of other countries sometimes succeed in the long run. Here, they only succeed for some weeks, in some cases even lose completely. The latest winner team of a pop group casting was called "some & any" by the producers of the show. How much does that say about the quality of the product? It almost sounds like a parody of a music group to be called like that.

But I'm drifting off. I'm now going back to names, and this here is something I found at T-online.de under the sports section:



Above you see an article select screen. One of them is about a new driver to enter Formula 1. His real name is Lucas di Grassi. But maybe because the guy who wrote the article was smoking some grass, he turned it into "di Grasso". But only at the top, because in the text below it is written correctly again. Now look at the next picture (below). You will see the exact same thing in the article itself. Wrong spelling, correct spelling. Copy and paste, anyone?

The mistake was not corrected even after days, so I gave in and wrote the T-online team a message and asked them to check their bloody spelling. It's still a shame that people get paid well for something so pathetic. How would you feel if someone misspelled your name twice and it only looks like a careless mistake, not a mistake because of a complicated name? I think you would be pissed off, too.

Have to write something

Oh no, it's already the end of November but I didn't post anything for this month. I have to catch up with it.

Okay, on Friday night I met Marit Larsen. But I don't really know what to mention. It was a great concert and I got to talk to her, but what else could I possibly say? Anyway, let's move on to other things. This is the shit I found recently:




I put my mouse in the middle of the pic and it said something about a person called "Demo Moore". Who is that? I can see Demi Moore there, but I don't know who Demo Moore is. Is that a demo version of her, like you get to see her, but it's only to check it out? I didn't know this kind of stuff is possible. Or maybe the picture itself is only a trial version and the people who made the article have to stop using the picture after some days... whatever.



Here you see an overview. There are several articles, but one appears twice. This happens when people rush things. I don't know what to say except this: They fucked up.



Margot Honecker is the widow of the last leader of East Germany. I put my mouse on the picture and it says: "sie liebt in Chile". She loves in Chile? What does that mean? Who does she love? Is that what she does for a living, to love in Chile? Oh... maybe you mean "sie lebt in Chile"? Because that would mean that she lives in Chile. How can someone add an additional letter like that by accident? That person must have been dreaming about his/her lover while typing this shit. I think they are on drugs all day, these fuckers from t-online.de

No idea what I will post here next, there are pics of Marit but this blog is mostly about complaining, so yeah... at least this should be okay for November. It's autumn, and maybe the cold weather will make some people write shit on the internet. Winter is coming and that's a great reason to publish articles stating wrong facts about health, causing panic about the flu, and other stuff like car accidents. I look forward to making fun of journalism again. Yay!

It's only a scandal if I'm not the customer but part of the scandal

I want to address a topic that really made me angry today. On this website that I often point out mistakes from, there was this article about my workplace (Agentur für Arbeit - the national employment agency). It was about a "scandal" with data protection.

The story went like this: Some unemployed people went to a talk show on tv and talked about their difficult situation. The days after, thousands of employees of my workplace throughout the country accessed the computer files of these customers who went to the talk show, because obviously, they were really interesting, so they wanted to read up on them. It became public that employees are so interested in people they see on tv. That's the scandal.

Below the article was a comment function, and of course, lots of idiots had to make their comments: "typical for Germany", "why not just implant a chip into anyone's brain", "they know what we're up to anyway", "the whole government is after us","it's like the spy system in former East Germany" and so on. Then I posted my comment and made some things clear:

1. Nobody in our institution is allowed to let any information leak to outsiders. What's in the agency, stays in the agency, no matter how many people in the agency are interested. Anything else would be a violation of laws and would result in being fired and possibly sent to prison.

2. It is a useful thing that the information is accessible throughout the whole country, because customers move, and if the information was only accessible to the employees who currently deal with the case, it would either require people at a different agency to ask the customer for all the information again, or it would take a while to unlock the files. Both would drive the customers, who are naturally very impatient and hate our agency, insane.

3. People who go to a tv show to striptease their life should not be surprised if they get a lot of attention afterwards.

More things should be pointed out:

4. Curiousity is a human character trait. If you trigger it, people will go after you.

5. Whenever I forbid customers at my workplace to change or ask for things on behalf of someone else (their children or husbands / wives), they become angry and never get it. They think I like to annoy them, but what I try to do is to stick to the rules. In 99 of 100 cases, a person trying to change something on behalf of someone who is not present will be a normal thing, without bad intentions, but in 1 out of 100 cases, it will be a jealous wife who caught her husband cheating on her and wants revenge. That is the reason why we don't let anyone access the files. But strangely enough, it's only a scandal when it's the way it's written in the article. People never see the other side of things.

Even worse, I once went to an authority where they asked me to show my private emails to them. And when I checked if it's legal, I was told that yes, it is legal, they are allowed to ask for that and I have to comply. Is that not a much bigger scandal? No... because it only affects me and few other people who add up to a minority that will never have a voice loud enough to scream.

It's really, really bullshit. You know, if the people at my workplace change the computer systems and make files harder to access anywhere in Germany, it will lead to side effects that will cause anger among the customers. People will wonder why it's impossible to access files. Even today, people come to us and say "hey, why don't you have any files, I was there only 5 years ago". Well, all the files will be deleted at some point, and that is also for a good reason. But it's never good enough. Never ever.

There was one scandal that I would really call a scandal at my workplace. One colleague (no idea who it was) tried to park her car on the public parking lot, but a customer took the place just before her and she was so angry that she showed him the finger and said "wait until I process your documents"... the crazy thing is that this happened in front of the customer and a witness that belongs to the customer. I would not be surprised if the person responsible will be fired. The damage done to the image of the corporation is so immense, and every day I try so hard to give my workplace a good image, but it's so hard with all the prejudice against us.

What remains is the fact that customers like to feel like kings, and they always want it their way. They complain about anything, and nothing is ever good enough. At the same time, they live in one of the wealthiest countries of all and receive benefits that other countries don't even offer in the first place. They are so spoilt, I sometimes say it's time for another world war so people learn to be humble again. Humility is a rare good nowadays.

Updates that suck

Recently, I had to bury what was left of Youtube's nice functions. It used to be such a good site once. But then, they changed the search function and made it so complicated for me to find the right videos. Now, our worst fears have come true. The new channel design, first a choice for those who liked it, was now forced on us all. And man, it really sucks.



It's as inconvenient as it can get. The featured video is so damn big that you have to scroll down for what feels like half a day to get to the channel information. The "videos" are now "uploads", first it's really confusing because you are wondering "so what is this... oh that's the person's own videos... thanks". Why always change the way things are called? Next time it's called "personal video" and "foreign video" for uploads and favourites?! Damn... and speaking of favourites, they are now, just like the uploads, in a long list, one video below the other. It used to be more convenient, you could see them in rows, easily 9 videos at the same time.

Also, when you click on any video, it loads directly in the channel of that person. But that's not what I want. When I click on a video, I want to go to the link where the video itself is, not watch it embedded in a channel. There is also the next fuckup. It doesn't display comments for the selected videos. Below the video is a text line that says "Show comments and related videos". But when you click on that, it does not cause a drop-down of comments and videos, it opens the damn page of the video itself and makes the video load all over again. What's the point of loading the video within the channel when all the convenience that comes from the video's page is only available when going to the page itself?!

There is another thing I really hate, and it has to do with Mozilla Firefox, or as I like to call it, Mozilla Firefucker. Usually something good, but it now has an irritating new function:



When I mark any text because I want to copy, delete or cut it out, a menu appears when right-clicking it. That is normal. But now, this menu suddenly disappears half the time within a split second and I have to do it again. Then the option on top is new... search menu... to me, this is entirely pointless because I already know what I want to do with my text. I usually want to insert it into some other blank space on a website I have already opened. It feels unnatural having to go down with my mouse until I can select copy. After doing it the same way for so many years, it's like learning to write again after a stroke. Can't things stay the same for once? What are they going to do next? Release every mouse with switched buttons? Or change the keyboard so that the upper line no longer consists of Q, W, E, R T in that order, but consists of the letters that are used to spell Bill Gates?

Or how about this: Get rid of all keyboards, and instead, make adapter cables so that you can connect a cell phone with the PC on the keyboard output and forever type with your cell phone instead of the keyboard. Judging what Youtube and others do, we will soon reach this level of discomfort. And they would market it as saving space, because a keyboard is so big while a cellphone is super small. So it makes sense, right? Right???