Heeding the Crocodiles
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Mystery Science Theater 3000
I've been watching these lately, since I bought the first four of the boxed sets from Rhino. Tonight's feast was the second half of The Sidehackers. Very funny riffage, but what a vile, vile movie. Fortunately, Joel ended the show on a high note, with the uplifting "Love Pads the Film". Oh, and if you're looking to buy any non-Rhino produced MST3K episode, check this place out. Any ep. costs six bucks, and they have various package deals. They also have a package of all of the Russo-Finnish MST3K flicks, which I'm looking forward to getting.
¶ 23:05 2 comments
Saturday, January 28, 2006
But, Of Course, I've Also Been the Source Of Annoyance
I can remember one anecdote which makes me a hypocrite about ungraciously declining an invitation. A couple of years ago my former manager came up to me and asked, "do you want to go and see Jimmy Buffett at [venue name] tonight?", to which I unthinkingly replied, "not unless you've got a gun in your pocket." Of course I apologized immediately, and felt bad about it, as I really liked and respected the guy.
¶ 17:16 2 comments
Some Random Annoyances
[To those of you who are annoyed by sentence fragments, I apologize in advance.]
"Less" when "fewer" would be correct. It's not that it's a bad infraction, but I made this mistake for a long time, and so I always notice it.
"Irregardless". This irritates me so much that I begin to react when someone says "irrespective", and then have to calm back down.
This may seem hypocritical, but people who correct your speech or grammar at times which are inopportune for you.* For example, I was speaking to the VP of my group at work, and for some unfathomable reason, I mispronounced "larynx" (it was bizarre, since I know the correct pronunciation, and had always used it previous to this encounter. Must've been nervous). A co-worker, who was not even involved in the conversation, corrected me in this manner: "what's a lair-nix? I've never heard of one. Most people have a lair-inks". I wanted to punch him in his throat and say "I meant the thing right there".
Management speak. Mix and match: synergies, synergy, synergize, best-of-breed, best-in-class, productize, productizing, leverage, paradigm (when "model" or "structure", will do), "impact" and "architect" as verbs in general, "architect" as a verb when you could just say "design", "opportunity" for "problem" (this is only annoying when the speaker never uses "problem"), "bottom line", "we need to put or [company group type] hats on", and the one which annoys me the most, "proactive" (almost always said when "preemptive" was meant). I realize that some of these words and phrases are necessary to avoid wordier constructions, but they are still annoying, and usually ungrammatical. If management folks would vary their speech more, I could live with their more occasional use. But they do not vary their speech.
Meetings scheduled for more than two hours with no scheduled bathroom breaks. What is wrong with a person who would schedule a meeting like that?
When sports announcers say "the [team] are within two" to mean that there is now a two point difference in the score. No, the team are not within two, they are within three.
When football announcers use the non-word "defensed" to mean "defended against" or "contained".
When announcers use the words or phrases, "he's a gamer", "he's a competitor" or "take [his/her/their] game to the next level".
When announcers who are older, or have no on-air history of it, adopt slang when calling games. Hearing these guys use phrases like "take it to the rack", "pass the rock", and "that bitch got punked, y'all", is painful.
When sports announcers always say the full name of the league and never its abbreviation. I'm pretty sure this is because they are told that saying the full name will pad the broadcast, if by only a few seconds. Perhaps I shouldn't resent this, given how stupid or pointless much of the stuff they say is anyway. Perhaps I end up being spared a couple of dumb comments which were crowded out by this habit of theirs.
Incorrect use of infer/imply.
"Thru".
"Back in the day", unless you're breaking off some rap lyrics.
"Ultraconservative".
"Radical right-wingers". Right-wingers aren't radical, they're reactionary.
"Politically Incorrect". If Bill Maher is politically incorrect then the phrase no longer has meaning.
Che T-shirts. Except for the ones here.
In a text, randomly, or in alternate paragraphs or chapters, changing the gender of pronouns when discussing hypotheticals or procedures where one's sex has no bearing on the subject matter, because the author perceives it as less sexist, or is afraid others will see him (or her, heh) as sexist if he (or she) sticks to the masculine. And I don't care if you go feminine, just pick one or the other if the subject doesn't demand gender-specificity.
People who pay no attention to anything in a parking lot but themselves, and so walk straight down the middle of a lane when it is busy. Or even if it isn't. It drives me crazy either way. What is wrong with you people? Are you stupid? Or are you so self-centered that you don't care if the people who are driving (and remember, that used to be you just a few minutes or hours ago) can't make progress because you meat sacks can't walk three feet to your left or right? Makes me want to teach them a 2500 pound lesson. Jerks.
Bumper stickers. With a few exceptions, but they are few.
People who call you on the phone and demand, "who is this?", without first saying who they are. Once, upon receiving one of these calls, I said to the guy, "who the hell are you?" Unfortunately for me, he replied, "your father." (and it really was)
Vanity plates, unless extraordinarily clever, or displayed on the cars of my friends.
"Like" supplanting "uh" as a verbal placeholder.
When someone declines your invitation to something by telling you how much they hate whatever it is you've invited them to. Actually, what's even worse is when someone who has overheard the invitation, but who hasn't been invited, and isn't involved in the conversation, interjects how much he or she hates the thing or activity put forth. Remember larynx corrector guy above? Yep, he does this too.
People who write lengthy parenthetical statements (like me). Well, that last one was short (although if you've read this entire post until here you know that some of my parenthetical digressions can be lengthy) but I'm sure you see what I mean.
People like me who use ". or ." inconsistently.
That Guy Crouchback still hasn't fixed his link to me saying "[Gately] gave up updating for Lent and never took it up again". It makes me cry.
*I don't think it's hypocritical, since I very rarely correct someone else's grammar or usage, and only then when I am alone with them, and very gently. But YPMV (Your Perception May Vary). ¶ 17:12 4 comments
"Less" when "fewer" would be correct. It's not that it's a bad infraction, but I made this mistake for a long time, and so I always notice it.
"Irregardless". This irritates me so much that I begin to react when someone says "irrespective", and then have to calm back down.
This may seem hypocritical, but people who correct your speech or grammar at times which are inopportune for you.* For example, I was speaking to the VP of my group at work, and for some unfathomable reason, I mispronounced "larynx" (it was bizarre, since I know the correct pronunciation, and had always used it previous to this encounter. Must've been nervous). A co-worker, who was not even involved in the conversation, corrected me in this manner: "what's a lair-nix? I've never heard of one. Most people have a lair-inks". I wanted to punch him in his throat and say "I meant the thing right there".
Management speak. Mix and match: synergies, synergy, synergize, best-of-breed, best-in-class, productize, productizing, leverage, paradigm (when "model" or "structure", will do), "impact" and "architect" as verbs in general, "architect" as a verb when you could just say "design", "opportunity" for "problem" (this is only annoying when the speaker never uses "problem"), "bottom line", "we need to put or [company group type] hats on", and the one which annoys me the most, "proactive" (almost always said when "preemptive" was meant). I realize that some of these words and phrases are necessary to avoid wordier constructions, but they are still annoying, and usually ungrammatical. If management folks would vary their speech more, I could live with their more occasional use. But they do not vary their speech.
Meetings scheduled for more than two hours with no scheduled bathroom breaks. What is wrong with a person who would schedule a meeting like that?
When sports announcers say "the [team] are within two" to mean that there is now a two point difference in the score. No, the team are not within two, they are within three.
When football announcers use the non-word "defensed" to mean "defended against" or "contained".
When announcers use the words or phrases, "he's a gamer", "he's a competitor" or "take [his/her/their] game to the next level".
When announcers who are older, or have no on-air history of it, adopt slang when calling games. Hearing these guys use phrases like "take it to the rack", "pass the rock", and "that bitch got punked, y'all", is painful.
When sports announcers always say the full name of the league and never its abbreviation. I'm pretty sure this is because they are told that saying the full name will pad the broadcast, if by only a few seconds. Perhaps I shouldn't resent this, given how stupid or pointless much of the stuff they say is anyway. Perhaps I end up being spared a couple of dumb comments which were crowded out by this habit of theirs.
Incorrect use of infer/imply.
"Thru".
"Back in the day", unless you're breaking off some rap lyrics.
"Ultraconservative".
"Radical right-wingers". Right-wingers aren't radical, they're reactionary.
"Politically Incorrect". If Bill Maher is politically incorrect then the phrase no longer has meaning.
Che T-shirts. Except for the ones here.
In a text, randomly, or in alternate paragraphs or chapters, changing the gender of pronouns when discussing hypotheticals or procedures where one's sex has no bearing on the subject matter, because the author perceives it as less sexist, or is afraid others will see him (or her, heh) as sexist if he (or she) sticks to the masculine. And I don't care if you go feminine, just pick one or the other if the subject doesn't demand gender-specificity.
People who pay no attention to anything in a parking lot but themselves, and so walk straight down the middle of a lane when it is busy. Or even if it isn't. It drives me crazy either way. What is wrong with you people? Are you stupid? Or are you so self-centered that you don't care if the people who are driving (and remember, that used to be you just a few minutes or hours ago) can't make progress because you meat sacks can't walk three feet to your left or right? Makes me want to teach them a 2500 pound lesson. Jerks.
Bumper stickers. With a few exceptions, but they are few.
People who call you on the phone and demand, "who is this?", without first saying who they are. Once, upon receiving one of these calls, I said to the guy, "who the hell are you?" Unfortunately for me, he replied, "your father." (and it really was)
Vanity plates, unless extraordinarily clever, or displayed on the cars of my friends.
"Like" supplanting "uh" as a verbal placeholder.
When someone declines your invitation to something by telling you how much they hate whatever it is you've invited them to. Actually, what's even worse is when someone who has overheard the invitation, but who hasn't been invited, and isn't involved in the conversation, interjects how much he or she hates the thing or activity put forth. Remember larynx corrector guy above? Yep, he does this too.
People who write lengthy parenthetical statements (like me). Well, that last one was short (although if you've read this entire post until here you know that some of my parenthetical digressions can be lengthy) but I'm sure you see what I mean.
People like me who use ". or ." inconsistently.
That Guy Crouchback still hasn't fixed his link to me saying "[Gately] gave up updating for Lent and never took it up again". It makes me cry.
*I don't think it's hypocritical, since I very rarely correct someone else's grammar or usage, and only then when I am alone with them, and very gently. But YPMV (Your Perception May Vary). ¶ 17:12 4 comments
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Guy Crouchback: Good For America?
In order to spare you the suspense, loyal readers, I'll begin by telling you the answer: no.
Mr. Crouchback is suspicious in many ways, seditious in others, and on the whole oleaginous and boxy. He is to be feared and stopped. And I've tried, Lord knows, I've tried. But it is very difficult to wrestle an oily crate to the ground. Perhaps a recounting of some of his exploits will raise the appropriate alarm in you, faithful persons. To date, he has, among other things, completed or attempted the following things:
1) Has attempted to kill Christopher Buckley on 17 separate occasions. Attempt 1-15 failed, 16 suceeded, and he failed again with the 17th. Buckley now taunts him by sending him notes on Brooks Brothers stationery (which I didn't even know they made) saying simply, "thanks for the nap." No one is quite sure why Crouchback wished death on Mr. Buckley, but it is suspected that the character of Colonel Murfletit in Buckley's Little Green Men was based on Crouchback, who was not pleased with the characterization.
2) Speaks French with a Ugandan accent, Japanese with a Dutch accent, and English like a cross between Cartman and Deputy Dog.
3) Considers Communists and Anarchists too wimpy and lacking in vision. Once harangued Manuel Ortega for three hours with his concept of "Super-Awesome Communardenvironarchy." Ortega was later heard to say (in Spanish) "Dude, that guy is hard-[blanking]-core! PLEASE keep him AWAY from me." The former Nicaraguan leader had also wet himself sometime during Crouchback's oration.
4) Uses his immense physical size to annoy others. For example, his favorite pastime, besides murder, is to go to a children's movie, find the smallest child in the theater, and then sit directly in front of him or her, even if he must evict the person currently occupying the seat he wants. If the child or his/her parent complains, Crouchback immediately yells to the entire theater choice information about the existence of various holiday figures. If the child indicates that he or she is unimpressed by this revelation, he leans in to within an inch of the child's face, bares his vampiric canines (he has them sharpened, but they were abnormally long to begin with) and says quietly, "I'll see you in your dreams." The last child he did this to had to be institutionalized. Granted, it was at one of the better boarding schools, but the kid was still pretty freaked out.
5) Prefers Leno to Letterman, and Larry King to all others.
6) Has not actually read any Evelyn Waugh, and reveals as much by pronouncing said author's first name as "Robert."
7) Is friends with one John Flory, who is a known avowed avower of vows.
8) Played chess with Death, and strangled Death to death after the latter would not acknowledge "king me" as a legal chess move.
9) Has an SUV which he keeps running always. When it is parked, he has a robot that fuels the vehicle before it runs out of gas (about every 15 minutes). The robot is fueled by the blood of third-world children, and the fuel the robot uses to replenish the SUV is flown by jet from whaterver is the farthest point in the U.S. (including Alaska and Hawaii) relative to the SUV. Furthermore, the jet uses an extremely sophisticated targeting system to guide the drop to the nearest point to the SUV which is also occupied by cute little puppies or kittens. The targeting system will also trade off a little more distance from the target in order to crush a greater number of puppies or kittens.
10) Has not noticed that I've revived my blog. ¶ 10:48 1 comments
Mr. Crouchback is suspicious in many ways, seditious in others, and on the whole oleaginous and boxy. He is to be feared and stopped. And I've tried, Lord knows, I've tried. But it is very difficult to wrestle an oily crate to the ground. Perhaps a recounting of some of his exploits will raise the appropriate alarm in you, faithful persons. To date, he has, among other things, completed or attempted the following things:
1) Has attempted to kill Christopher Buckley on 17 separate occasions. Attempt 1-15 failed, 16 suceeded, and he failed again with the 17th. Buckley now taunts him by sending him notes on Brooks Brothers stationery (which I didn't even know they made) saying simply, "thanks for the nap." No one is quite sure why Crouchback wished death on Mr. Buckley, but it is suspected that the character of Colonel Murfletit in Buckley's Little Green Men was based on Crouchback, who was not pleased with the characterization.
2) Speaks French with a Ugandan accent, Japanese with a Dutch accent, and English like a cross between Cartman and Deputy Dog.
3) Considers Communists and Anarchists too wimpy and lacking in vision. Once harangued Manuel Ortega for three hours with his concept of "Super-Awesome Communardenvironarchy." Ortega was later heard to say (in Spanish) "Dude, that guy is hard-[blanking]-core! PLEASE keep him AWAY from me." The former Nicaraguan leader had also wet himself sometime during Crouchback's oration.
4) Uses his immense physical size to annoy others. For example, his favorite pastime, besides murder, is to go to a children's movie, find the smallest child in the theater, and then sit directly in front of him or her, even if he must evict the person currently occupying the seat he wants. If the child or his/her parent complains, Crouchback immediately yells to the entire theater choice information about the existence of various holiday figures. If the child indicates that he or she is unimpressed by this revelation, he leans in to within an inch of the child's face, bares his vampiric canines (he has them sharpened, but they were abnormally long to begin with) and says quietly, "I'll see you in your dreams." The last child he did this to had to be institutionalized. Granted, it was at one of the better boarding schools, but the kid was still pretty freaked out.
5) Prefers Leno to Letterman, and Larry King to all others.
6) Has not actually read any Evelyn Waugh, and reveals as much by pronouncing said author's first name as "Robert."
7) Is friends with one John Flory, who is a known avowed avower of vows.
8) Played chess with Death, and strangled Death to death after the latter would not acknowledge "king me" as a legal chess move.
9) Has an SUV which he keeps running always. When it is parked, he has a robot that fuels the vehicle before it runs out of gas (about every 15 minutes). The robot is fueled by the blood of third-world children, and the fuel the robot uses to replenish the SUV is flown by jet from whaterver is the farthest point in the U.S. (including Alaska and Hawaii) relative to the SUV. Furthermore, the jet uses an extremely sophisticated targeting system to guide the drop to the nearest point to the SUV which is also occupied by cute little puppies or kittens. The targeting system will also trade off a little more distance from the target in order to crush a greater number of puppies or kittens.
10) Has not noticed that I've revived my blog. ¶ 10:48 1 comments
Thursday, January 19, 2006
So Here's Why
As you may have noticed, I've just put all of the content back up for this blog. The date stamps should all be accurate, although there may be links which are broken. Why did I take the content down in the first place, you may ask? I suppose I should explain.
It became difficult for me to live with the idea that my words, all those imperfectly formed, hastily written (or conversely, fussed over to the point I lost perspective on their meaning), and perhaps logically and factually wrong words were out there, which at any moment could be read by my friends or complete strangers (Although the liklihood of the latter was more remote, since I don't publish this blog on Blogspot to anyone but my friends). And since editing a blog entry is trivial (I've already edited this one twice), it was difficult to resist repeatedly editing the same piece. This presented two problems. The first was that it was difficult to leave a post alone and call it finished. The other was that, for many posts, even after repeated and obsessive editing, they were still no good. And that became tough to take. And related to that was the fact that what I write is mediocre, so I decided finally that the writing was not worth the toll in paranoia.
But I suppose I'm ready to worry less and just view this forum as a way to communicate with my friends, as well to ruminate-or at least think out loud-about ideas and issues. I'll try to be correct and interesting, but to also not regard posts as formally published things which have to be fussed and fretted over so much.
And the other reasons that I took everything down were that I'm mercurial and inconsistent. These are character flaws that I'm always working on, but sometimes they get the better of me, and so I appear to be doing things for arbitrary reasons. And sometimes it's true. But I will try to leave everything up, write about interesting things, hopefully in an entertaining way, and not spaz out and remove everything every couple of years. ¶ 21:09 1 comments
It became difficult for me to live with the idea that my words, all those imperfectly formed, hastily written (or conversely, fussed over to the point I lost perspective on their meaning), and perhaps logically and factually wrong words were out there, which at any moment could be read by my friends or complete strangers (Although the liklihood of the latter was more remote, since I don't publish this blog on Blogspot to anyone but my friends). And since editing a blog entry is trivial (I've already edited this one twice), it was difficult to resist repeatedly editing the same piece. This presented two problems. The first was that it was difficult to leave a post alone and call it finished. The other was that, for many posts, even after repeated and obsessive editing, they were still no good. And that became tough to take. And related to that was the fact that what I write is mediocre, so I decided finally that the writing was not worth the toll in paranoia.
But I suppose I'm ready to worry less and just view this forum as a way to communicate with my friends, as well to ruminate-or at least think out loud-about ideas and issues. I'll try to be correct and interesting, but to also not regard posts as formally published things which have to be fussed and fretted over so much.
And the other reasons that I took everything down were that I'm mercurial and inconsistent. These are character flaws that I'm always working on, but sometimes they get the better of me, and so I appear to be doing things for arbitrary reasons. And sometimes it's true. But I will try to leave everything up, write about interesting things, hopefully in an entertaining way, and not spaz out and remove everything every couple of years. ¶ 21:09 1 comments
