Comedy conversation on Tuesday in work. People were talking about nerdy hobbies and one colleague mentioned they used to collect stamps, knowing full well I still do.
"Heeeey," I said, before acquiescing that yes, it is a bit of a nerdy hobby.
Another collegue then said, "Oh, I didn't know you were a phila, philander, no that's not right."
"No, I'm not a philanderer." (People, including me, descend into giggles.) "But, thanks."
"I'm sorry, I meant... I got the wrong word." (Giggles)
"I can see it now. You're going to be talking to someone in the kitchen and go 'Oh, yes, you know Jon, he's a mad keen philanderer.'"
"Oh I could say all sorts. 'His wife likes it because it keeps him quiet. He goes to special events and everything.'"
Showing posts with label silly things people say. Show all posts
Showing posts with label silly things people say. Show all posts
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Hitting the backspace in your head
At Roundtable last night one of the kids, James, coined a good phrase - "hitting the backspace in your head". He was talking about how when you write an email or a text, you need to review it and then decide not to send it, or edit it. But when we speak we don't always use the 'backspace' button.
Maybe we should. There are many, many things I've said where I wish I could just hit the backspace button and delete them. My words are less 'seasoned with salt' and more 'drenched in chilli dust' sometimes. I'm not always kind. I'm not always gracious. I'd like to be, but I'm not sure that really counts for anything.
I also made a classic 'mis-speak' last night. We were talking about emoticons and how they've become vital aids to communication in a digital age, because actually our tone of voice and our body language convey 92% of the information when we speak to someone. Strip that out and people are bound to misunderstand you.
'So we need emoticons,' I explained, 'to help people realise what we mean. Like if I say something harsh, I'd use the...' - I meant to say 'winky one'. (Semi-colon, closing bracket.)
Unfortunately I said '...I'd use the wanky one.'
I don't know what keys you'd press to create the 'wanky one'. But as everyone fell about laughing, and Tom immediately updated his Facebook status, I was thinking 'Backspace key, backspace key!'
Maybe we should. There are many, many things I've said where I wish I could just hit the backspace button and delete them. My words are less 'seasoned with salt' and more 'drenched in chilli dust' sometimes. I'm not always kind. I'm not always gracious. I'd like to be, but I'm not sure that really counts for anything.
I also made a classic 'mis-speak' last night. We were talking about emoticons and how they've become vital aids to communication in a digital age, because actually our tone of voice and our body language convey 92% of the information when we speak to someone. Strip that out and people are bound to misunderstand you.
'So we need emoticons,' I explained, 'to help people realise what we mean. Like if I say something harsh, I'd use the...' - I meant to say 'winky one'. (Semi-colon, closing bracket.)
Unfortunately I said '...I'd use the wanky one.'
I don't know what keys you'd press to create the 'wanky one'. But as everyone fell about laughing, and Tom immediately updated his Facebook status, I was thinking 'Backspace key, backspace key!'
Friday, October 30, 2009
I guess that would be rather a limited range of products
I've been giving my friend Elaine a lift in the mornings recently, as she has been volunteering at the place I work. I also give her lifts home.
The other day we were heading home, and comparing notes about how crap and soulless the new much-hyped Cardiff Cathedral to Mammon has turned out to be.
"It's got an Apple shop, though," I said.
"An apple shop?"
"Yeah, you know, computers and iPods and stuff."
"Oh, an Apple shop. I thought you meant a shop that just sold - never mind!"
The other day we were heading home, and comparing notes about how crap and soulless the new much-hyped Cardiff Cathedral to Mammon has turned out to be.
"It's got an Apple shop, though," I said.
"An apple shop?"
"Yeah, you know, computers and iPods and stuff."
"Oh, an Apple shop. I thought you meant a shop that just sold - never mind!"
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Even so, I'm not watching your vampire porn
My friend Elaine was very disappointed that I didn't watch the first terrestrial airing of Deep South vampire series True Blood. ("Mm gunna bite y'alls nayk!")
My main reason for avoiding it was Elaine and another friend describing it as "vampire porn". I said as much to Elaine, prompting this reply:
"Oh, it's not really that bad. The sex is very tongue-in-cheek."
Hmm.
My main reason for avoiding it was Elaine and another friend describing it as "vampire porn". I said as much to Elaine, prompting this reply:
"Oh, it's not really that bad. The sex is very tongue-in-cheek."
Hmm.
Friday, July 24, 2009
On the very same day...
Talking about Crusader youth camps, Ruth followed up her comment about becoming 'the' fat designer by asking another colleague whether she ever asked people if she could borrow a padded bra.
So... one of us is fat, another is flat, what will I be?
So... one of us is fat, another is flat, what will I be?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Salad dodgers
In breaktime today, we had cake to celebrate the fact that a colleague didn't die in a horrific road accident that wrote off his car last week. (Strange, I know.)
Matt, one of our two graphic designers, refused to have a piece of cake, as he's dieting. This caused his cake-eating compatriot Ruth some consternation. "Oh, no," she said, "at this rate I'm going to be the fat graphic designer."
"Er, thanks," said Matt.
Matt, one of our two graphic designers, refused to have a piece of cake, as he's dieting. This caused his cake-eating compatriot Ruth some consternation. "Oh, no," she said, "at this rate I'm going to be the fat graphic designer."
"Er, thanks," said Matt.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
When the self-editing process fails
You may find this hard to believe given half the things I say, but I do have a 'self-editing' mode. I often bite back the really stupid/insensitive/crude/banal things that pop into my head. Today I was a witness when someone else's mouth was running faster than their self-editor.
We were in a meeting where a manager was outlining a new process, which seems great. "However," he said, "the only nigg-" and then he stopped and put his hand to his mouth.
He could have rescued it and said "ul" - 'the only niggle', but that wasn't what he was going to say and we all knew it, especially when, after a shocked one-second-that-felt-like-an-eternity pause he said, embarrasedly, "in the woodpile, is..." and explained the drawback to the system.
To his credit he looked very red in the face and he did catch himself. And he was willing to admit that he had almost said something pitifully medieval that could cause offence. But it was still one of those nasty surprises that left us all sitting there wondering whether we had really heard what we had heard.
There never were many rascialist analogies in the English language. 'Nigger in the woodpile' was one of the few, although my Dad says he remembers his mother asking for 'Nigger Brown' cotton in a haberdashers when he was small. It was the official colour, named that by the manufacturer. When people complain about the passing of the good old days they forget the latent institutionalised racism.
But what do you do when someone casts around for an analogy and begins to use a bad one without thinking? Do you take offence? Do you make a formal complaint? Do you have a quiet word? Do you laugh out of sheer shock and embarrassment? Or do you do what my friend Ross did and ask loudly "Who says we're a white, middle-class organisation then?"
We were in a meeting where a manager was outlining a new process, which seems great. "However," he said, "the only nigg-" and then he stopped and put his hand to his mouth.
He could have rescued it and said "ul" - 'the only niggle', but that wasn't what he was going to say and we all knew it, especially when, after a shocked one-second-that-felt-like-an-eternity pause he said, embarrasedly, "in the woodpile, is..." and explained the drawback to the system.
To his credit he looked very red in the face and he did catch himself. And he was willing to admit that he had almost said something pitifully medieval that could cause offence. But it was still one of those nasty surprises that left us all sitting there wondering whether we had really heard what we had heard.
There never were many rascialist analogies in the English language. 'Nigger in the woodpile' was one of the few, although my Dad says he remembers his mother asking for 'Nigger Brown' cotton in a haberdashers when he was small. It was the official colour, named that by the manufacturer. When people complain about the passing of the good old days they forget the latent institutionalised racism.
But what do you do when someone casts around for an analogy and begins to use a bad one without thinking? Do you take offence? Do you make a formal complaint? Do you have a quiet word? Do you laugh out of sheer shock and embarrassment? Or do you do what my friend Ross did and ask loudly "Who says we're a white, middle-class organisation then?"
Monday, May 11, 2009
nonsequitur
My normally-coherent friend Cheryl, uttered a classic nonsequitur today:
"My arms really ache. I think I've got irritable bowel syndrome."
{pause}
(during which time I'm wondering how those two are linked and coming up with a very disturbing, yet plausible, possible reason)
"Er, I mean repetitive strain injury. Ha ha ha."
Fair play, the girl can laugh at herself.
"My arms really ache. I think I've got irritable bowel syndrome."
{pause}
(during which time I'm wondering how those two are linked and coming up with a very disturbing, yet plausible, possible reason)
"Er, I mean repetitive strain injury. Ha ha ha."
Fair play, the girl can laugh at herself.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Credibility in ruins
I was talking to my sister-in-law the other night and had another "To the blog!" moment.
I asked her about her recent holiday in Rome. "I loved it," she said, "but there was a lot of Roman stuff..."
Erm. Yeah.
I asked her about her recent holiday in Rome. "I loved it," she said, "but there was a lot of Roman stuff..."
Erm. Yeah.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Fair Trade Debate
We went to a debate on fair trade last night, which featured an economist called Peter Griffiths, who has worked in the developing world and written a book about it. He was very critical of fair trade as a concept, blaming it for various economic ills and for being “dishonest”.
Now it’s tempting to just dismiss his views on fair trade as those of an arrogant idiot, and certainly that’s the persona he put across, and move on. But the problem with idiots is that they tend to be noisy and promulgate their idiocy aggressively. So, here are some of the basic things Peter Griffiths got wrong last night.
1) He characterised “the fairtrade” as one homogenous movement with one website and one point of view. But it’s a bit more complicated than that.
There is not one business model, not one monolithic outlook, not one dictated point of view. It is a heterodox movement, of many trading and education organisations, in both the developed and the developing world. To attack the concept of fair trade as not relying on statistics, of not presenting facts, of being dishonest in the way it presents itself, on the basis of visiting one website (as Peter Griffiths implied was his basis for his attack) is at best naïve, or at worst willfully ignorant.
2) He was factually inaccurate.
“The first thing the fairtrade says is that it will only deal with co-operatives.” Rubbish. Fair Do’s isn’t a co-operative. As a Director there, I’m a director of a Limited Company. We trade with some co-operatives, charities, other limited companies, small family-run business, sole traders and Traidcraft who are a PLC. When he states nonsense as fact, Peter Griffiths shows he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he talks about “the fairtrade”.
3) According to Peter Griffiths, “the fairtrade” is primarily agricultural and is a food-oriented issue and that keeps people in poverty, ergo “the fairtrade” is bad for people.
Visit our shop, Peter, and you’ll see that we sell crafts and low-tech produced goods, like soap. The reason many fairly traded goods are agricultural produce is because there are hideously unfair trade barriers and tariffs, which prevent value-added products from being exported to the developed world.
These trade barriers are designed to protect Western jobs and keep the developing world reliant on trading agricultural products. It’s not the fault of “the fairtrade” that the EU, America and various other powerful nations limit what developing world countries can export. As an economist, you should really know that.
4) Also, according to Peter Griffiths, paying fair prices stimulates over-production, which results in lower prices for everyone else, thereby causing a greater social evil. This is one of the main things he accused “the fairtrade” of being dishonest about.
But as another panelist said, the power of fair trade organisations to influence global productivity, pales in comparison to the power of large multinational companies and the Western governments the multinationals use as stooges.
5) On that note, coffee is a price-volatile commodity. So, how does the guaranteed price offered by most fair trade organisations cause price volatility? Stabilising prices should surely have the opposite effect, unless “the fairtrade” is a convenient scapegoat for Western corporate greed.
6) Peter Griffiths described co-operatives as a ‘dirty word’ in the developing world as they are ‘inevitably corrupt’.
“The guy doing the books has never seen thirty quid before in his life, so it goes into his pocket…. If, as a co-operative manager you don’t take the kickback, someone else will.” Those statements didn’t go down at all well with the chap who was at the meeting and who works for a co-operative in the Windward Isles.
Let’s not be so naïve as to say that corruption doesn’t occur in co-operatives, but come on, Peter. Describing everyone who works in a co-operative as a thief-in-waiting is slander. Our own hands aren’t so clean. Not long ago the EU had to shut down for several months while it investigated internal corruption. And many farmers say they value being in a co-operative because of the open-ness, the transparency, the regular audits, and they know what everyone else is getting and whether it’s being fairly distributed.
7) Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Peter Griffiths railed against the dishonesty of “the fairtrade” and the lack of fact-based evidence. But then based his slurs about co-operatives on his own (negative) experiences. He presented no stats to back up his 'facts'. He offered no hard evidence.
8) Saving money is only half the solution. Peter Griffiths trumpeted how he had saved millions of pounds for developing world governments in food programmes and the like. Well done.
But saving is one thing, earning is another. If I go to town and buy a bargain I might have saved £20, but I will still have spent money. Enabling people to spend more efficiently is a good thing, but the bottom line is you are still helping them spend. And the money you save is just figures on one side of a balance sheet.
Trading fairly with people, on the other hand, enables them to earn. They end up with real money, which they can then choose to freely spend on the goods and services they need. Freeing up capital in the developing world to stimulate local economies is the great boon of “the fairtrade”. The savings Peter Griffiths has made won’t ever be spent, because they’re only numbers in a ledger, not real dollars in a pay packet.
9) And finally, Peter Griffiths attacked the whole of the “the fairtrade” as unprofessional and incompetent. Well, if I can return the favour and tar all economists with the same brush, I’d like to say this: economists like Peter Griffiths have had billions of pounds of resources from various institutions to sort out global poverty and decades to do it in.
And so far, they haven’t delivered.
Peter Griffiths may not like fair trade, he may even have valid criticisms to make, but compared to the mess economists have made in Africa, for example, the ‘damage’ caused by “the fairtrade” is negligible.
What fair trade as a method of business has done is bring real change to poor and marginalised communities, provided sanitation, education, security, health and wealth. It has given people benefits today and the hope for a brighter tomorrow. And it has done this, generally, as a grass roots movement, in the face of opposition from powerful institutions and governments. It has succeeded against the odds because it has proven that there is another way to do trade. And, frankly, it has rendered the opinions of economists like Peter Griffiths about “the fairtrade” irrelevant.
A final note.
When I was a kid we lived in a country in West Africa. Economists from various international bodies like the IMF and the World Bank, almost all of whom were white Westerners like Peter Griffiths, advised the government to stop people growing maize and to grow rice instead. Now thirty years later, that country has to import rice and other food to prevent its people starving to death.
When it was obvious that the switch to rice wasn’t working, the economists encouraged the government to promote peanut harvesting instead. And they said the same things to every other West African country. When we returned to the UK, the value of the peanuts which were being harvested was less that the value of the sacks they were being sold in.
Those are anecdotes, not evidence, although you can look it up if you like, to check out whether I’m lying or not. But, those stories indicate, perhaps, why I don’t really rate the opinions of ‘development economists’. The advice of economists destroyed that country and kept it impoverished. So forgive me for trying to find a better way to make life better for people.
Now it’s tempting to just dismiss his views on fair trade as those of an arrogant idiot, and certainly that’s the persona he put across, and move on. But the problem with idiots is that they tend to be noisy and promulgate their idiocy aggressively. So, here are some of the basic things Peter Griffiths got wrong last night.
1) He characterised “the fairtrade” as one homogenous movement with one website and one point of view. But it’s a bit more complicated than that.
There is not one business model, not one monolithic outlook, not one dictated point of view. It is a heterodox movement, of many trading and education organisations, in both the developed and the developing world. To attack the concept of fair trade as not relying on statistics, of not presenting facts, of being dishonest in the way it presents itself, on the basis of visiting one website (as Peter Griffiths implied was his basis for his attack) is at best naïve, or at worst willfully ignorant.
2) He was factually inaccurate.
“The first thing the fairtrade says is that it will only deal with co-operatives.” Rubbish. Fair Do’s isn’t a co-operative. As a Director there, I’m a director of a Limited Company. We trade with some co-operatives, charities, other limited companies, small family-run business, sole traders and Traidcraft who are a PLC. When he states nonsense as fact, Peter Griffiths shows he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he talks about “the fairtrade”.
3) According to Peter Griffiths, “the fairtrade” is primarily agricultural and is a food-oriented issue and that keeps people in poverty, ergo “the fairtrade” is bad for people.
Visit our shop, Peter, and you’ll see that we sell crafts and low-tech produced goods, like soap. The reason many fairly traded goods are agricultural produce is because there are hideously unfair trade barriers and tariffs, which prevent value-added products from being exported to the developed world.
These trade barriers are designed to protect Western jobs and keep the developing world reliant on trading agricultural products. It’s not the fault of “the fairtrade” that the EU, America and various other powerful nations limit what developing world countries can export. As an economist, you should really know that.
4) Also, according to Peter Griffiths, paying fair prices stimulates over-production, which results in lower prices for everyone else, thereby causing a greater social evil. This is one of the main things he accused “the fairtrade” of being dishonest about.
But as another panelist said, the power of fair trade organisations to influence global productivity, pales in comparison to the power of large multinational companies and the Western governments the multinationals use as stooges.
5) On that note, coffee is a price-volatile commodity. So, how does the guaranteed price offered by most fair trade organisations cause price volatility? Stabilising prices should surely have the opposite effect, unless “the fairtrade” is a convenient scapegoat for Western corporate greed.
6) Peter Griffiths described co-operatives as a ‘dirty word’ in the developing world as they are ‘inevitably corrupt’.
“The guy doing the books has never seen thirty quid before in his life, so it goes into his pocket…. If, as a co-operative manager you don’t take the kickback, someone else will.” Those statements didn’t go down at all well with the chap who was at the meeting and who works for a co-operative in the Windward Isles.
Let’s not be so naïve as to say that corruption doesn’t occur in co-operatives, but come on, Peter. Describing everyone who works in a co-operative as a thief-in-waiting is slander. Our own hands aren’t so clean. Not long ago the EU had to shut down for several months while it investigated internal corruption. And many farmers say they value being in a co-operative because of the open-ness, the transparency, the regular audits, and they know what everyone else is getting and whether it’s being fairly distributed.
7) Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Peter Griffiths railed against the dishonesty of “the fairtrade” and the lack of fact-based evidence. But then based his slurs about co-operatives on his own (negative) experiences. He presented no stats to back up his 'facts'. He offered no hard evidence.
8) Saving money is only half the solution. Peter Griffiths trumpeted how he had saved millions of pounds for developing world governments in food programmes and the like. Well done.
But saving is one thing, earning is another. If I go to town and buy a bargain I might have saved £20, but I will still have spent money. Enabling people to spend more efficiently is a good thing, but the bottom line is you are still helping them spend. And the money you save is just figures on one side of a balance sheet.
Trading fairly with people, on the other hand, enables them to earn. They end up with real money, which they can then choose to freely spend on the goods and services they need. Freeing up capital in the developing world to stimulate local economies is the great boon of “the fairtrade”. The savings Peter Griffiths has made won’t ever be spent, because they’re only numbers in a ledger, not real dollars in a pay packet.
9) And finally, Peter Griffiths attacked the whole of the “the fairtrade” as unprofessional and incompetent. Well, if I can return the favour and tar all economists with the same brush, I’d like to say this: economists like Peter Griffiths have had billions of pounds of resources from various institutions to sort out global poverty and decades to do it in.
And so far, they haven’t delivered.
Peter Griffiths may not like fair trade, he may even have valid criticisms to make, but compared to the mess economists have made in Africa, for example, the ‘damage’ caused by “the fairtrade” is negligible.
What fair trade as a method of business has done is bring real change to poor and marginalised communities, provided sanitation, education, security, health and wealth. It has given people benefits today and the hope for a brighter tomorrow. And it has done this, generally, as a grass roots movement, in the face of opposition from powerful institutions and governments. It has succeeded against the odds because it has proven that there is another way to do trade. And, frankly, it has rendered the opinions of economists like Peter Griffiths about “the fairtrade” irrelevant.
A final note.
When I was a kid we lived in a country in West Africa. Economists from various international bodies like the IMF and the World Bank, almost all of whom were white Westerners like Peter Griffiths, advised the government to stop people growing maize and to grow rice instead. Now thirty years later, that country has to import rice and other food to prevent its people starving to death.
When it was obvious that the switch to rice wasn’t working, the economists encouraged the government to promote peanut harvesting instead. And they said the same things to every other West African country. When we returned to the UK, the value of the peanuts which were being harvested was less that the value of the sacks they were being sold in.
Those are anecdotes, not evidence, although you can look it up if you like, to check out whether I’m lying or not. But, those stories indicate, perhaps, why I don’t really rate the opinions of ‘development economists’. The advice of economists destroyed that country and kept it impoverished. So forgive me for trying to find a better way to make life better for people.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Stuck on Jesus
Place: Youth meeting
Time: Sunday morning
[leader:] So how can we keep Jesus in the centre of our life?
[kid (Huw):] Gaffer tape?
Friday, February 06, 2009
Irritating turns of phrase
These are some of the phrases people use that grate with me, some of them more than others…
Do you know what I mean? repeated frequently. Yes. I speak the same language as you. I can follow the thread of your argument. I have a brain. I know what you mean.
Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I have two female friends who will suddenly sing a loud ‘la’ note for no apparent reason other than that they’re not the centre of the conversation. Possibly the most annoying way to grab attention.
Guess what I did today… You gave yourself a full-frontal lobotomy with a spork? No? But what else would explain your prob…? Er. I don’t know. What did you do today?
Would you like to…? I’m on dodgy ground bringing this up because this is my lovely wife’s favourite prefacing question. “Would you like to empty the bins and recycling?” No, not really. Or, classically when I’ve just sat down on the sofa after a hard day, “Would you like to go out to the kitchen and do a random chore involving heavy lifting?” (Okay, that’s not a literal report, but the gist is true.) Used as a ‘non-nag’ nagging method. ‘I’m not telling you that you ought to phone your dad, but would you like to phone your dad…’
I’m not being funny but… Good thing you said that or I’d have burst out laughing at your point. You will let me know when you are being funny won’t you. I might miss it.
Have you got two minutes to [insert random charitable endeavour]? Yes I do have two minutes, thanks. And I’d like to keep them.
[In lilting sing-song] Thank you. One of my colleagues uses this method to signal the end of a conversation; say ‘thank you’ in a sing-song voice and then walk away. Thank you for listening to me; I’m bored of you now. Or, thank you for allowing me to interrupt your work; I don’t want to hear why my idea will create a lot more work for you because frankly I don’t care. Goodbye.
“Hello, can I speak to Mr Mattius/Mathis/Matthews/Matt-i-ass please?” No. Get lost.
I’m sure you’ve got your own - add them in the comments…
Do you know what I mean? repeated frequently. Yes. I speak the same language as you. I can follow the thread of your argument. I have a brain. I know what you mean.
Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I have two female friends who will suddenly sing a loud ‘la’ note for no apparent reason other than that they’re not the centre of the conversation. Possibly the most annoying way to grab attention.
Guess what I did today… You gave yourself a full-frontal lobotomy with a spork? No? But what else would explain your prob…? Er. I don’t know. What did you do today?
Would you like to…? I’m on dodgy ground bringing this up because this is my lovely wife’s favourite prefacing question. “Would you like to empty the bins and recycling?” No, not really. Or, classically when I’ve just sat down on the sofa after a hard day, “Would you like to go out to the kitchen and do a random chore involving heavy lifting?” (Okay, that’s not a literal report, but the gist is true.) Used as a ‘non-nag’ nagging method. ‘I’m not telling you that you ought to phone your dad, but would you like to phone your dad…’
I’m not being funny but… Good thing you said that or I’d have burst out laughing at your point. You will let me know when you are being funny won’t you. I might miss it.
Have you got two minutes to [insert random charitable endeavour]? Yes I do have two minutes, thanks. And I’d like to keep them.
[In lilting sing-song] Thank you. One of my colleagues uses this method to signal the end of a conversation; say ‘thank you’ in a sing-song voice and then walk away. Thank you for listening to me; I’m bored of you now. Or, thank you for allowing me to interrupt your work; I don’t want to hear why my idea will create a lot more work for you because frankly I don’t care. Goodbye.
“Hello, can I speak to Mr Mattius/Mathis/Matthews/Matt-i-ass please?” No. Get lost.
I’m sure you’ve got your own - add them in the comments…
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Doing well thanks
One funny thing to come out of being ill was the email which asked "How's the virus?"
It's in a very healthy state, thanks. Me on the other hand...
It's in a very healthy state, thanks. Me on the other hand...
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
A gentleman is always thorough
Our lunchtime conversation today...
Cheryl (talking about the venue for the staff conference) "And if you want to play there are six table tennis tables."
Me (trying to be clever) "You can do what on the table tennis tables?"
Roger (who wasn't listening to me) "Will we have enough time?"
There's a man who knows what it takes to please a lady. Roger, we lesser men salute you.
Cheryl (talking about the venue for the staff conference) "And if you want to play there are six table tennis tables."
Me (trying to be clever) "You can do what on the table tennis tables?"
Roger (who wasn't listening to me) "Will we have enough time?"
There's a man who knows what it takes to please a lady. Roger, we lesser men salute you.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Biology is not her strong point
One of the crueler sides of my personality is laughing at people who are sillier than myself. It’s a trait I share with my friend Cheryl who told me today about her housemate, who is fretting slightly because her period is late.
Said housemate decided that she’ll go to the doctor on Monday if she still hasn’t come on. Cheryl tries to calm her down, by telling her that if you’re stressed, which she is, it’s perfectly normal to have some variance in your cycle, and be a bit late.
Housemate accepts this advice and then says: “My mum did say there were five weeks in this month…”
Yeah, that’s not how it works, dear.
Said housemate decided that she’ll go to the doctor on Monday if she still hasn’t come on. Cheryl tries to calm her down, by telling her that if you’re stressed, which she is, it’s perfectly normal to have some variance in your cycle, and be a bit late.
Housemate accepts this advice and then says: “My mum did say there were five weeks in this month…”
Yeah, that’s not how it works, dear.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Down with the youth
Out with the older youth today for the first time. It seems kids are actually as ignorant as they seem. A discussion about musical idols led to the question 'who was in the Beatles?' Ok, fair play, they got two, and suggested Elvis Presley to boot. But then...
"And the other one was Ringo Starr..."
"Really? What a stupid name - Rainbow Star."
"RINGO Starr."
"And the other one was Ringo Starr..."
"Really? What a stupid name - Rainbow Star."
"RINGO Starr."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
I'm sure you said...
Another one of those coffee time convos today.
Mark: I've got a diving lesson tonight.
Carol: I didn't know you couldn't drive.
Mark: DIVING lesson.
Mark: I've got a diving lesson tonight.
Carol: I didn't know you couldn't drive.
Mark: DIVING lesson.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Stuff which drives me nuts
In no particular order…
- dining out with indecisive people who can’t pick a dish off a menu
- pfaffers who take an eternity to do anything
- people who have piles of junk in every room of the house
- the piles of my junk in every room of my house
- spiritualised church jargon
- arms sales subsidies
- time-wasting complaints letters
- coned off sections of motorways that don’t seem to be coned off for a reason
- rude boys in done up cars
- computer screenfreeze
- the belligerent guy in my street who gets antsy about “his” parking space
- spam
- people ruining a joke by getting the punchline all wrong
- The Da Vinci Code
- being expected to join in with office discussions of reality TV shows
- adverts which have nothing good to say about the product so claim the opposite sex will suddenly find you desirable for no good reason
- American Christian bigots
- British Christian bigots
- people who say, “I’m not racist, but…”
- easily offended imbeciles
- The Daily Mail’s annual rants about how they’re banning Christmas
- stupid people who could be smarter if they wanted to be
- you can’t draw a cartoon about Mohammed, but you can hold up placards calling for infidels to be beheaded
- when you’re asked for your opinion and then told why you’re wrong
- pointless makework
- it’s always sunny until I leave the office or a bank holiday comes along
- left-wing feminists sticking up for Muslim cultures which force women to wear burkhas
- ‘pass this on to ten friends to have good luck’ emails with some puke-worthy twee moral message about telling people how much you love them
- vegetarians who still eat chicken and fish – “You’re not vegetarians!”
- telemarketers asking for Mr Williams, who hasn’t been available on our phone number for seven years!
- God’s silence
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
And you're basing that observation on what exactly...?
I spent most my coffee break today talking to some guy who rang in oblivious to my need for caffeine and a chat. When I finally managed to end the call I turned back to our team's breaktime conversation to catch our head honcho start an observation with the line:
"I think the thing is with strippers these days..."
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Our questions define us
Gradually I’ve learned that our questions define us. Of course you can use questions for all kinds of comic laughs. There’s nothing quite as funny as a dumb question. So when someone in the office went to see the film The Queen, my question “What’s that about?” raised some hearty laughs.
But there are some other questions that will forever define some people. Like for example the question about the Rocky Horror Picture Show: “Is that the one based on Macbeth?”
Another classic is the question from Elaine: “Do they pluck chickens before or after they kill them?” (In fairness to her, some people probably do pluck them before they kill them, and we call those people BASTARDS!)
Then there’s my all-time favourite from a lady doctor friend of mine who really should remain anonymous when she asked: “Can you guess what toy I keep in my bed?”
It’s funny, but she doesn’t own any of the toys I suggested.
But there are some other questions that will forever define some people. Like for example the question about the Rocky Horror Picture Show: “Is that the one based on Macbeth?”
Another classic is the question from Elaine: “Do they pluck chickens before or after they kill them?” (In fairness to her, some people probably do pluck them before they kill them, and we call those people BASTARDS!)
Then there’s my all-time favourite from a lady doctor friend of mine who really should remain anonymous when she asked: “Can you guess what toy I keep in my bed?”
It’s funny, but she doesn’t own any of the toys I suggested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)