On a Not-Quite-Meeting of the Minds

Recently I've been trying to get a job.

One job I tried for required me to be a good speller. A lady rang me up and said, "I'd like you to do a quick spelling test on the phone. Are you ready?"

"Sure."

"OK, first word. You can write them down if you want. Parallel."

"P-A-R-A-L-L-E-L" I spelled.

"Fabulous!" she said enthusiastically.

Oh good, I thought. I passed word number one. But maybe word number two would be really tricky.

I waited.

And waited.

And waited.

Then finally it clicked.

"Umm, was I supposed to spell 'Fabulous'? I mean, was that the next word?" I asked tentatively.

"Actually I said 'nebulous'," she said.

"Whoops, I mean, I thought you were saying fabulous, I mean that was a comment, I mean saying I was fabulous ..."

My voice trailed off. Maybe I wasn't Fabulous. Heck, perhaps I was Nebulous. And how DID you spell "Parallel", anyhow?

Well I'm glad the next word hadn't been "Loser" or "Unimpressive" because I think I might have dented my ego irreparably. As it was I fortunately got through the test, and fortunately there were not too many other words on it to take personally.

Good luck to my tote bag!

Just the other day I was on my way to an interview with a recruiter.

I was standing at Gordon station when a very non-obliging bird decided to swoop down UNDER THE SHELTER mind you and drop faeces on me.

On my tote bag, that is.

I checked carefully and it didn't get my clothes, and the only bit of me it got was my hand (the hand that was placed on my tote bag).

Yelping, I made my way to the station toilets, swearing "shit shit shit". I felt that at least I should use appropriate language for the moment. Then I tried using the only available accessories (toilet paper, water and soap) to rid my bag of birdy-poo. Oh, and my hand, too.

I missed that train but caught the next and I decided not to regale the recruiter with this amusing story of birdy-droppings at the interview.

However, I have heard the old adage that if a bird chooses to drop its droppings on you, it's good luck! Is this meant to be an omen? Will I get a job with this recruiter? Or does it simply mean I will get no more bird plops?

Or does it mean that my TOTE BAG is to receive the good luck? Will it be a very lucky and fortunate tote bag, that has lots of happiness and longevity in its toting life?

I'm a little confused, but very optimistic!

Stating the frikkin' obvious

"Breast cancer is an issue close to the heart."

I saw this today as a motivational message to do something about breast cancer. Are we supposed to be motivated to do more fot those with cancer of the left breast than those of the right?

Is Humiliation the Answer?

A guy is wearing a humiliating sign because he got caught cheating. That's his punishment. He's walking around wearing a huge sign saying "I CHEATED THIS IS MY PUNISHMENT".

Now, there's some speculation this could be a stunt, for TV or something, but then some blog commenters went on to say things like "humiliation isn't the answer, she just wants revenge, but it won't fix their marriage, it's stupid, he'll hate her for it and do it again" blah blah. While others said "Good on her."

Anyhow, the whole sign thing isn't new. I've seen this kind of punishment before and I remember a spoof of it done in a tv show called Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David is accused of stealing a fork from a restaurant, and is sentenced to walk around wearing a big sign saying "I steal forks from restaurants" or something similar.

But if the whole humiliation thing wouldn't work for a relationship, does it mean it doesn't work at all or is a relationship just a special case?

I mean, if the reasoning given by some is the case, would it be fair to say that revenge is never the answer, and Larry would become an embittered fork-stealer, after he wore the sign he would not learn his lesson but hate society for making him wear the sign and go out and steal forks for the hell of it, just to get his revenge? He would haunt restaurants and take a fork, slip it into his bag and say, "SCORE ONE FOR ME, that's for making me wear that sign, SUCK ON THAT you AMERICANS! Swallow that for every one of you who supports that stupid law that made me where that sign! I've got my FORK now! And next time ... I might up it to a spoooooon! Or a splade! I'll be the cutlery king and my palace shall rock with my silverware in my vengeance!"

Or perhaps he would see a fork and go crazy. He would see it, remember the sign and how the fork symbolised the sign and how it made him feel and he would go dizzy, and you'd have to call the paramedics.

Same could be said of this man and his cheating, except it wouldn't be forks. Well, maybe it was forks. I won't presume to know too much about his sex life.

I don't know whether vengeance and humiliation is an effective tool in rehabilitating a person, or fixing behaviour. But as some pointed out .. it probably makes us feel good for a while, and for some people that's all that matters.

Been wrestling with fiddly equations in my computing course and ...

If there's one thing I don't need to not see, it's another double negative.

Could someone please explain Quidditch to me?

I was reading the paper about a week ago and some guy was writing in to complain about a poor game of football or something somewhere which really annoyed him. He was really annoyed because one team had won, they had scored only one try but they had got a conversion, I think some other points from things that were like whatevers, field goals or special kicks or whatever the terminology in this particular game was. I'm afraid I don't know too much about the game to explain.

The thing is, the other team had got more tries and LOST. I don't think the margin was great but they lost.

And it really annoyed the man and he thought it was a stupid game and really, it took all the fun out it and just was boring and not worth watching.

This brings me to the well-known Rowling-invented, Harry Potter game of Quidditch which I'm afraid I just don't understand and maybe someone can explain it to me.

Apparently it's a riveting game and everyone loves it, everyone magical that is, so there must be something to it, or could wizards and witches just have terrible taste?

But basically it involves two teams and and they beat balls into goals and get ten points per goal, with a defence goalies on each side too, that makes sense.

The bit that doesn't make sense is The Golden Snitch, which is worth 150 points of caught, and ends the game. Apparently it is the only thing that ends the game.

Now, given that the catching of The Golden Snitch is worth 15 goals, it makes sense that you have to get 16 goals to make it worth your team not catching the Snitch. That seems to me quite a few.

Here's some questions:

a) If you were a Beater, or in fact anyone other than a Seeker (the guy/gal who goes after the Golden Snitch), wouldn't you feel a bit useless on the team?
b) If you were the team Captain, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to spend more time just working out strategy that involved sabotaging the other team's Seeker's efforts so your team's Seeker could get to the Snitch fastest, rather than bothering with trying to score goals?
c) Since the Snitch is worth 150 points AND ends the game, not only does it make sense to make the Snitch a priority, but wouldn't it also make sense to work out some kind of signal system so that if your team is trailing by more than 150 points, your Seeker doesn't actually catch the Snitch, but instead puts his/her efforts into stopping the other Seeker from catching it? And that you only actually catch it when you are winning or are less than 150 points behind?

How come there are games when someone has caught the Snitch but they've lost anyway, you'd think professionals would do better than that!

I think I am really missing something. I would be very grateful if someone could explain what all the fuss about Quidditch was. Since the Seeker was so powerful in relation to everything else, disproportionately so, I felt it actually took away from the game. It lacked real suspense and drama.

At any rate I'm sorry but I could never get that excited about Quidditch, I guess I am too nerdy to even be really into sports :)

Growl!

My throat feels funny. My voice is strange. It sometimes sounds like Maria but then sometimes it goes growly and deep. I can't quite control it. It's all 'throaty'.

Either I'm getting a bit of a cold or I'm turning into a man.

Gulp!

I applied for a job yesterday, online.

I pressed the button the website and it led me to a form where I filled in a couple of basic details and then it said to submit my resume.

That's it. No personality test, no references, no academic transcript, no background check and no need for a drivelly cover letter where I go on predictably about my excellent communication skills, my love for working in a team, my ability to prioritise and multitask and handle high pressure environments and my ability to work BOTH independently and in a group and my great computer and office skills.

Now I should have been glad not to have to go through all that predictable crap per usual but for some reason without it I felt lost! I sat there for a few moments and thought "HEEEEEEEEEELP!"

Then I had to remind myself, "Hey, this is a good thing!" and remember to attach my resume and submit!

Flexible on the Job

Now I'm all for multiskilled lawyers. And being a paralegal comes with more than just legal research and court work and legal admin, sure.

I've been there and done that sort of thing. Made plenty of coffees, ordered food, written ads for wineries, even babysat for grandchildren. Flexibility on the job. All for it.

But now, out of work as I am, I searched MyCareer for a law job and limited my search to Legal - Law Clerks/Paralegals NSW, and here's one job ad that came up:


Junior
JUNIOR Lawnmowing. Must be fit, reliable & willing to work. 0417 249 309

Hmmm.

That's a new one. I didn't take up Lawnmowing Law as my elective, but it's a possibility.

Does pregnancy stir your loins?

Is pregnancy sexy?

Today, I was wandering around at Wynyard station, minding my own business and I happened to wander into the newsagent. As one does, I checked out the stand of Mills and Boon toitles that were available, maybe 18-20 titles or so. It wasn't in most titles, but in enough to stand out ... there were quite a few titles with the word 'pregnant' or 'pregnancy' in it.

The titles were mainly weird, and long-winded, like they'd used up all the snappy and cool titles and now had to move onto the long-winded ones to make sure they weren't repeating old titles.

For instance, one was called The Tuscan Tycoon's Pregant Housekeeper.

Others included phrases such as Purchased for Pregnancy in the title and I don't think they were talking about one of those over the counter pharmaceutical tests.

Now, I kind of understood why the proliferation of words like "tycoon" and "billionaire" and passion" in the titles. These are words that traditionally are supposed to get a girl's heart pounding, especially if it's "Billionaire with a bad heart condition, and with no whiney ass kids fighting for their rights to the will when he pops it", which is probably an even better way to title a Mills and Boon, and probably would have been done if it had fit on the spine of one of those miniatures.

But pregnancy? I wasn't aware that tummy cramps, walking around like the side of the house, cravings to eat twice your share at meal times and antenatal classes were so erotic.

I must be so out of it.

I'm just going to write my new erotic thriller, The Mysterious Woman in the Lacy Maternity Gown. In all not so good bookshops as soon as I think of something more than the title to write down.

De Ja Vu

I was just watching the DVD of Anne of Green Gables The Sequel the other day which is a hefty almost 4 hours long and is based on three of the follow up books to Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery.

It isn't bad, certainly it's only based on the books and deviates from them marvellously. In some ways I enjoyed it more than the first DVD, probably because I'm not so attached to the sequel books as to the first book. So the fact that the plot deviates a lot didn't bother me so much.

I know that TV series such as this are supposed to evoke a sense of de ja vu, but must they do it so self-consciously? I suppose I watched 4 hours in one stretch (hey, I've just lost my job, I have nothing to do round the house all day but watch nostalgic videoes) and if it were shown episodically on TV it may have felt differently.

But I felt that in the Anne of Green Gables DVDs, they overdid the bit about repeating key "Anne" phrases till they became laborious. "Luckily I have an imagination" "she really is a kindred spirit" "I see that [whatever] hasn't damaged your tongue, Anne" seemed to pepper everyone's speech, with a knowing look and twinkle in the eye. Bah. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. As far as I know, Ms Montgomery cooled off using that so much in the later books anyhow.

But what really got me was the play scene with Mary Queen of Scots. There's that fainting scene. Am I dreaming but were those complaints made by the girl who had to do the fainting snitched straight from Amy in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?

Amy is told she's "stiff as a poker" at the fainting scene, and she complains that she doesn't choose to get all dirty tumbling down getting bruises, and if she can down easily, she will go. Jo then demonstrates how to faint for her, and does so with drama.

In Anne of Green Gables, "Hattie" in Mary Queen of Scots is told she is stiff at fainting, and she complains she doesn't choose to get all dirty fainting, and if she can go down easily, she will. Anne jumps in and does a demonstration, but Hattie can't imitate her well.

I know this is meant to evoke childhood memories, but nicking something out of another childhood girly book? Or am I forgetful, and did L.M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott happen to write something very similar, and the screenplay writer just faithfully adapted that very scene from Ms Montgomery's work?

Anyhow, felt weird.

A Nomination for Dumbass of the Year

I was walking in the city recently and I saw a blind woman, complete with Guide dog, asking a man for directions.

He pointed to his right and said, "It's over that way, see?"

"But I can't see!" she replied.

Bomb the Moon!

Yesterday I read this article about how NASA as found, in the so called global economic recession, half a billion dollars to bomb the moon.

I'm sure lots of Americans are really glad to know how their tax money is being spent. While they don't have welfare nearly so good as many other countries to prop them up should they lose their job, which is happening is droves at the moment, they can sleep well knowing that their is a nice dent in the moon's surface.

The reasons, according to this article, for bombing the moon, are a) to find water which may or may not be on the moon and b) if there is water, the water vapour which will be sent up in the air by the bomb will form a cloud which will allow us to draw a very detailed map of the moon. Of course this could disturb the water supply and the map of the moon will be different from the moon as we currently know it because it will have a huge dent in the side of it from a bomb, but to hell with that.

So basically, we are spending half a billion dollars to find water in outer space that mightn't even exist but if it does exist, it will be a long way from us so I'm thinking, what exactly will a water supply out there do for us, wouldn't it be smarter to build a really cool dam or water catchment on Earth? What's next, a big pipeline from Earth to the moon or little modules that go out to the moon every so often with astronauts whose sole job is to fill up little plastic bottles, load them on to the ship and then bring 'em back and sell them to restaurants at exorbitant prices?

What's more, if we interfere with the moon to much, by bombing the hell out of it with target practice or draining it of large amounts of water, who knows what it may do to affect our own environment, as the moon has a direct effect on Earth - including its own water movements (oh, and some say our mental health).

The next thing is, we're trying to get a map of the moon.

I'm not sure why, I don't know how many people holiday there, we are slack enough about getting maps on Earth. My bus route map is inaccurate. Start at home.

Wat are they hoping to do with a map of the moon, start a Google Moon project?

I can just see it, Google will announce a Google Moon service, and everyone will want to see their favourite part of the moon.

Whoopee!

Then you'll download the service and it will tell you "Please type in an EXACT STREET ADDRESS" or it won't show you the pic of the moon bit you want which will be absolutely fantastic. I want my Google Moon money back.

There is probably a reason why intelligent life from outer space doesn't contact us and that's possibly because we don't rate as intelligent to them. They're ringing all their more intelligent buddies and writing human beings off in the "dumbass" sector, not worth bothering with or contacting.

Mr Eggplant

On her blog recently, Lexicon posted this pic of an Amazing Aubergine. I just have to say, this country is often overwhelmed by the Big Veges. The Big Pineapple, the Big Apple, etc. But I was very impressed by another Amazing Eggplant which I found at the markets recently, and dubbed Mr Eggplant. Perhaps not the biggest eggplant but it's not the size that mattered here. It's what he ... errh ... special extras he had to show for himself.

Mr Eggplant either has a long snout or a rather Proud Protuberance of another sort. He's certainly not hiding it, and it's this sort of Aussie pride which we thought extremely amusing and just had to pay for. Mr Coffee and I kept Mr Eggplant alive for several days till he began to look a little withery, and then he had to be consumed. He stood in the kitchen, look at that stance, man, that posture, he knows his place and it's not at the bottom of the vege pile, that's for sure! I was the one who chopped the Protuberance off, eventually, when it finally gave in and looked a little too wilted to wait - it seemed Mr Coffee didn't want the responsibility. It seems to be a man thing.

But I let him eat the appendage.

He was a very tasty Mr Eggplant and I'll be talent scouting at the next market trip. I encourage all others to do so, we should encourage Attidude Aubergines in Australia, and this Mr Eggplant was one sassy Aubergine who held himself with Righteousness in our Kitchen. What a guy!

Life before Birth

I need to take the original copy of my birth certificate to work next week when I start my new job (hooray guys! I, in this economic climate of all times, have found a NEW JOB!).

I got my mother to dig it up and she told me she usually didn't allow it out of her filing cabinet.

"Guard it with your life!" she said.

This struck me as somewhat strange. No, I thought, my life is going to come before my birth certificate!

In fact, doesn't most people's?

Smack!

This article on corporal punishment caught my attention today. A man belted his 5 year old daughter several times with a ... well ... belt because she wouldn't tell him where she got a suspicious $2.10 from.

He was fined $1000 and had his daughter taken away from him.

What interests me is the range of opinions on this one.

Some side with the judge, saying that what the father did was barbaric or at least absolutely unacceptable. Some do say that an open-handed smack might have been ok but using a belt was unacceptable. And some reason that if you can't smack an adult then you can't smack a kid.

And people have been hopping mad that Muslim clerics have been recommending that husbands smack wives.

Others have said this is a stupid argument as this is adult-adult, where as an adult smacking a kid is different.

But wherein lies the difference and does it make it more right - or is it just more acceptable because certain societies, like upper class English Boarding schools have been whacking kids for ages, and we want to justify it?

Some people would say the difference is because adults have the responsibility of bringing up the child and therefore should be able to whack the kid and teach them "respect", whereas a husband and wife are equals. On the other hand, an adult and child are also unequals in that an adult is generally stronger and that a child is more vulnerable and more likely to be susceptible to emotional and physical damage and the adult is not only given the responsibility of instilling respect but other moral values and behaviour patterns, and also to protect the child, and this could be an argument to not use violence of any sort against a child.

Of course, the most obvious debate was well perhaps the man did wrong and overreacted or maybe it wasn't that bad ... but on the other hand was the punishment meted out the right one, or more importantly, was it right for the daughter? The guy didn't, from the sounds of the story, seem like he was just bashing the daughter generally, and was separating her from her father the best course of action? It could be more psychologically damaging.

Perhaps it might be better if he were fined more or had to attend some counselling/training classes for effective parenting and put on probation ..... maybe a combination.

But it didn't seem to be the biggest debate.

Some of the most amusing arguments and attitudes to me are these:

THIS GENERATION IS A RUDER/MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL GENERATION THAN MINE THEREFORE THE WAY I WAS BROUGHT UP WAS BEST AND YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT

This attitude is generally but not always purported by people who purport to be 'older' talking of 'younger people today'. Someone usually talking about how they got the strap or lots of homework or had to walk ten miles just to go to the toilet but now you've got all these young nancy-pantsies kids who've got en suites and patterned toilet paper and mobile phones and parents who put them in the naughty corner as their final resort and then they all grow up to be dope pushers and terrorist bombers or worse still, vote Greens. that would never have happened in MY DAY, they grumble. Heck, we didn't HAVE GREENS. Show some RESPECT.

The funny thing about this is I wonder how they have all this stuff worked out, that they are all so great. Did their oldies ever tell them they were dysfunctional or were they always shining stars? And did they ever figure that their grumpiness and all just makes them rude and generally antisocial people who ain't that great? I'm guessing that the crime stats and unemployment records were just as dysfunctional in their generation as in ours. They're just dyspunctional because they can't own up to it. And they didn't notice it so much because they didn't have the Net. They invented port-a-loos instead.

I GOT THE STRAP AND I'M SO WELL ADJUSTED LAW-ABIDING AND A WONDERFUL PERSON WITH NO EMOTIONAL SCARS, NEVER DONE A THING WRONG IN MY LIFE AND I'D BASH MY KIDS TOO TO MAKE THEM LIKE ME SO NATURALLY HITTING YOUR KIDS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO

I always wonder at the natural arrogance of some people who write such things, maybe they don't realise how it comes across. I wonder who told them how wonderful they were, anyhow, and whether, while they are writing "There are so many idiots running around who have been spoilt by lazy discipline ... but my mum and dad belted me and I have grown up as a well-adjusted citizen with a good job and respectful ..." that it ever occurs to them whether some people or many people who meet them might think of them as a person whose personality, attitude, manners and behaviour could be greatly improved upon 'had they been brought up differently'.

It's also amusing that these people will go on about how they are so law-abiding and have great respect for the law and authorities while they go on about how they would bash their kids - in flagrant disrespect, it seems, for the authority on law in THIS case - the Judge!

A conundrum.

I suppose one could say they respect its existence or argument but then go out and disobey it or advocate disobeying it anyhow - but then what makes them any different from the other lawbreakers out there - what, because they believe they've given some reasoned thought to it and other people are commoners who don't even think the existence of law is something to respect? That's sorta ... weird.

I think it's more a case of people who say this sort of thing who believe there are certain laws and regulations that matter and those are the ones that they don't break; if you did point out some laws or regulations they did break or believed in breaking they might get all huffy and say those laws weren't important or you were being petty - whether for them it was the fact that you had accidentally gone 1 or 2 km above the speed limit (I've done that, I haven't quite got the knack of that accelerator yet) or jaywalked, or arranged their front yard against council regulations or travelled further on a train than you ought to even if it was just because you fell asleep and you quickly corrected it by getting off at the next station and going back. But strictly speaking it's WRONG.

Anyone who hasn't done anything wrong like that, and has even made it to adulthood ... they're probably lying or living in a cage. Which is probably much worse than a belt.

Review: House of Wax

I saw House of Wax just the other night.

It wasn't terrible - as far as very C-grade slasher-horrors go, and me not liking those very much. Which is to say it rates pretty lowly on my list but I can confidently say that probably just being in that genre already sticks it in that category.

Some people say that they have a problem with the fact that Paris Hilton was bad at acting in this film. In her defence - well, there wasn't much good acting from anyone else in this film. So she didn't really stand out. She wasn't even the most annoying character (I thought).

One thing I want to know about such films - you are the "goodie" character. There is a big bad villain after you and has already showed it wants to kill you and will stop at nothing. Then there is a scene where the goodies get to kill the villain by doing something like punching him out or putting a bullet through his tummy or an arrow or sword through his stomach or chest. Big bad guy goes down from single blow.

Goodies hug each other, put aside their weapons, spend a whole lot of time chatting or crying with relief and walking slowly away or whatever. In this time you usually see or find that big bad guy isn't really dead just badly wounded, gets up, and manages to become big bad threat all over again.

The end game occurs when the goodies after a big chase end up bashing the lights out of the baddie and making sure he is dead or throwing him in a vat of chemicals or whatever.

What I want to know is:

WHY instead of spending that time hugging each other in relief don't the goodies give the baddie a couple of good extra thwacks to ensure he's really out? They usually have something handy - a chair, the end of a rifle, whatever.

It'd save a heck of a lot of trouble, usually a few houses and lives and a few limbs.

I can understand that sometimes the goodie is too weak or is in a hurry and can't do it but so often you have this dumb storyline where they are too busy standing around checking that their dress is ok and a big bad guy is getting up ready to stab them from behind. REALLY??!!

Also

I have to note I loved this phrase summarising the plot of "House of Wax", found on imdb.com

"An ethically-diverse group of college-aged kids ..."

I'm not sure that it was a typo, you know. "ethically diverse, deprived, challenged"? I don't know what the politically correct term is nowadays.

Category Uncategorised

I have a "Miscellaneous Items" Folder. Yep Sirree, I do.

I've seen people put a "Miscellaneous" Label on their posts.

Then I saw a blog where someone went one step further and put an "Uncategorised" Label on a post.

I thought the point of labelling was to categorise.

Next step Label - "Unlabelled".

Crap Service for Crap Signage - at Coles

I have had a hang up about the incorrect use of the words "less" and "fewer" - most people use "less" instead of "fewer" rather than the other way round, which urged me to write this ode to Coles last year.

But the "12 Items or Less Service Lane" actually does grammatically make sense.

It's just that you never seem to get to get to choose.

Even if you take 12 items, you still get crappy service, it's just as crappy, not any better, than when you take 11 or 9 items through. So you aren't really choosing between 12 items, or less service. They should take the freaking sign down.

World Knowledge

This man (Daniel Geale) just became IBO world middleweight champion. And he's Australian. But most people don't know about him.

He said in a recent interview:

"Am I Australia's least known world champion? Yeah probably." with a laugh.

I assure Daniel Geale that I don't know of any other Australian world champion that I know of less than I know of him. There, boy!