Two students, looking through course documentation, choosing classes:
Jim: OMG, look! There's a class on bras! I'm doing that one! Should be fun, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. I've always been interested in bras, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Kev: There's a class on bras? Where?
Jim points to a course heading.
Kev: What are you talking about?
Jim: Bras.
Kev. Yeah. No. I mean, that's not a course on bras. It's a course on CObras. The snakes.
Jim: What?
Jim looks more closely.
Jim: Oh. I thought it was bras.
Kev: You can read. What did you think the C and the O were about?
Jim: I thought they were a winking face emoji. You know, like... "bras" *wink*. Or *wink* bras. Because they know it's rude.
Kev: Why would they put an emoji in the course name? Anyway, a C can't be a winking eye. There's no vertical winking.
Jim: Isn't there? *winks*
Kev: It's a shame. I bet a course on bras would be pretty interesting. It could be mainly a fashion thing, but they could also get into bras as a political/ social symbols. Like burning bras and stuff. I think the history of the bra would be an interesting topic.
Jim: Yeah, it's a shame. I suppose it would be unlikely for them to run a course on bras here at Sheffield Reptile College.
Kev: Yeah.
Jim: Not sure if I'll sign up for cobras. After all, I'm already doing that course on pythons.
Kev: How's that going?
Jim: I don't like it. I only signed up by accident. I thought it was a class on pylons.
Kev: Oh. Did you think the TH was, what, some kind of wonky waffle emoticon?
Jim: Mmmmmmmmmmaybe.... *waffles*
Showing posts with label Waffles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waffles. Show all posts
Sunday, 25 February 2018
Friday, 16 April 2010
Party Time
I spent last night at a work party. There was a disco, but I don't dance. So I spent the evening dressed in a suit, watching the dancers, fingering the neck of my bottle of beer like a jaded travelling businessman at a disappointing strip-club.
***
I've decided to condense some of my entries into a single paragraph, so I don't get bored of them.
***
I was accused of murder, my alibi fell through, but luckily I avoided conviction by using hypnosis and a rope ladder. I'm currently in Paraguay, off my face on barbiturates.
***
Good writing is good editing. (By which I mean good writing, rather than being the actual positive act of writing itself - writing words, I mean - is reliant not so much on the actual generating of output - again: words - but rather in the examination of any writing produced, and the identification of any words, phrases, ideas etc that could be excised to make the writing (words) more snappy. What you don't want is waffle. Not actual waffles, but extraneous writing, that might obfuscate your meaning by overloading the point you're trying to make with lots of extra information, unnecessary exposition, or cumbersome sentences, which may prove difficult to read, and could, in fact, mean that people end up not reading what you write through sheer annoyance at your longwindedness. So editing is really the key - perhaps the most important element, of producing effective writing.
I hope I've made myself clear (comprehensible and easy to understand).
***
I missed the big leadership debate yesterday because of the aforementioned party.
I think I would have found it difficult to sit through anyway. I find live television embarrassing at the best of times, but three desperate men trying to act normal would make me cringe myself into a red ball of wince.
In an ideal world, there would be a better way to judge prospective candidates. The quality of someone's performance in a snappy, public-speaking contest isn't necessarily the best indicator of their ability to govern. But the truest measure would probably be a trawl through the minutiae of their past records and a mountain of paperwork.
And that may not appeal to the usual ITV audience.
I might watch the next one though. Then I can provide a breakdown of their every facial tick.
Really, the make-up people should have removed all ticks (and other parasites) from the faces of the candidates before broadcast. Unfortunately, the pesticide they use would have obliterated David Cameron.
Ha! Because he's an insect! Satire! SATIRE!
I could be on Radio 4, satirising everyone, making cutting remarks about their appearance, and parroting commonly held beliefs about the candidates!
Satire is the noblest art in the world. Cynicism, personal attacks and awful puns wrapped in a smug bundle of twat. That's me all over.
Part of me wonders if the satirists, the liberal journalists, and the sensitive comedians are secretly happy with the prospect of a Conservative government. They must me quite excited about being able to unleash all their bile at the party in charge. They can be rebels again; underdogs, the pygmies blowing darts at the dominant elephant (to steal a Bill Hickseanism).
Because even though everyone hated Labour, there must have been something in the back of their mind tempering the full force of their satirical weaponry, knowing that the Tories were loving every minute of it.
But once Cameron gets in, the gloves are off. We can return to the golden days of Ben Elton (and oh how we miss those), and all us left-leaning creative types can be defined by pure venomous opposition to the ruling party.
It's almost worth a lot of poor people getting poorer, and minority groups being discriminated against, just so Hugh Dennis and Rory Bremner can feel totally righteous in their scathing attacks on George Osborne's stupid face.
***
I've decided to condense some of my entries into a single paragraph, so I don't get bored of them.
***
I was accused of murder, my alibi fell through, but luckily I avoided conviction by using hypnosis and a rope ladder. I'm currently in Paraguay, off my face on barbiturates.
***
Good writing is good editing. (By which I mean good writing, rather than being the actual positive act of writing itself - writing words, I mean - is reliant not so much on the actual generating of output - again: words - but rather in the examination of any writing produced, and the identification of any words, phrases, ideas etc that could be excised to make the writing (words) more snappy. What you don't want is waffle. Not actual waffles, but extraneous writing, that might obfuscate your meaning by overloading the point you're trying to make with lots of extra information, unnecessary exposition, or cumbersome sentences, which may prove difficult to read, and could, in fact, mean that people end up not reading what you write through sheer annoyance at your longwindedness. So editing is really the key - perhaps the most important element, of producing effective writing.
I hope I've made myself clear (comprehensible and easy to understand).
***
I missed the big leadership debate yesterday because of the aforementioned party.
I think I would have found it difficult to sit through anyway. I find live television embarrassing at the best of times, but three desperate men trying to act normal would make me cringe myself into a red ball of wince.
In an ideal world, there would be a better way to judge prospective candidates. The quality of someone's performance in a snappy, public-speaking contest isn't necessarily the best indicator of their ability to govern. But the truest measure would probably be a trawl through the minutiae of their past records and a mountain of paperwork.
And that may not appeal to the usual ITV audience.
I might watch the next one though. Then I can provide a breakdown of their every facial tick.
Really, the make-up people should have removed all ticks (and other parasites) from the faces of the candidates before broadcast. Unfortunately, the pesticide they use would have obliterated David Cameron.
Ha! Because he's an insect! Satire! SATIRE!
I could be on Radio 4, satirising everyone, making cutting remarks about their appearance, and parroting commonly held beliefs about the candidates!
Satire is the noblest art in the world. Cynicism, personal attacks and awful puns wrapped in a smug bundle of twat. That's me all over.
Part of me wonders if the satirists, the liberal journalists, and the sensitive comedians are secretly happy with the prospect of a Conservative government. They must me quite excited about being able to unleash all their bile at the party in charge. They can be rebels again; underdogs, the pygmies blowing darts at the dominant elephant (to steal a Bill Hickseanism).
Because even though everyone hated Labour, there must have been something in the back of their mind tempering the full force of their satirical weaponry, knowing that the Tories were loving every minute of it.
But once Cameron gets in, the gloves are off. We can return to the golden days of Ben Elton (and oh how we miss those), and all us left-leaning creative types can be defined by pure venomous opposition to the ruling party.
It's almost worth a lot of poor people getting poorer, and minority groups being discriminated against, just so Hugh Dennis and Rory Bremner can feel totally righteous in their scathing attacks on George Osborne's stupid face.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
I think I'd be remiss if I didn't call this entry 'Waffle'
This isn't the potato-related fun mentioned in my last post, but is potato-related. I suppose there is a rich vein of tuber goodness to be mined for laughs. (Tuber Goodness should not be confused with Cuba Gooding Jr, although I'd rather stare at a potato for two hours than watch Jerry Fucking Maguire again).
Birds Eye Potato Waffles are waffly versatile.
And they are. They are waffly versatile. But let's face it: that is damning with faint praise.
Even the most waffly versatile foodstuff isn't that versatile in the grand scheme of things. Your options with potato waffles are still fairly limited.
Grill 'em, bake 'em, fry 'em, eat 'em.
Immediately, without any further analysis, we can see that there are only four options here.
Four options does not constitute versatility. I can think of four ways to wear a baseball cap. I wouldn't say that it's a particularly versatile piece of clothing. It is still (regardless of the configuration) in essence, a hat.
One of your waffle options is 'eat 'em'.
Eat 'em?
That's not versatility! That's not a wacky alternative option! If you're producing a foodstuff, its being edible is expected. It's standard. That is a default option for any food.
"Why not try, for a laugh, eating the waffles?!"
Thanks for that suggestion. I was planning on using them as hilarious Elton John-style glasses. I was going to construct an ineffective prison cell. I was going to use it as a tiny cattle-grid so that any beef products I might be eating aren't able to escape the plate. And now you're telling me I can eat them as well? Praise the Lord! These waffles must be some kind of all-purpose super-food!
(That was sarcasm, by the way. I'm actually quite sceptical about the versatility claims made by the advert - perceptive readers may have caught that)
I can't help but wonder why they decided to market this product on the basis of its versatility, when it's not really evident. It's almost as if the product has NO OTHER APPEALING ASPECTS WHATSOEVER.
I also object to the advert on linguistic grounds. You can't completely change the meaning of a word by sticking an adjective in front of it.
"Oh, we know they're not versatile. But they are waffly versatile. That's different."
You can't start doing that. There'd be anarchy.
Try new Marlboro Lights! They're tobacco-ly good for you!
Nestle - The exploitationally ethical snack company!
They try to escape this semantic cul-de-sac by changing the slogan to 'awffly versatile' at the end. But they spell it wrong, so they can't be sued: "I'm sorry you are not pleased with the variety of cooking options presented by our waffles, madam. But it clearly says at the end of the advert 'awffly versatile', not 'awfully versatile'. As you may know, 'awffly' is actually a Welsh word meaning: 'not'."
So, all in all, I think we can agree that Birds Eye have let us down (also in the odd decision not to have an apostrophe in their company's name).
***
So Paul, I hear you saying, that was probably too much time spent analysing a ten-second advert from the eighties.
Well, you might think that. But I think I can milk the waffle-topic a little bit more. That's because I did a Google search for the product, and came up with this website.
It's a site with reviews.
Reviews of waffles.
I didn't know such things existed, but I'm delighted that they do.
I know there are reviews on places like Amazon. But these are usually for things like DVDs and books. Things that are complicated and interesting to review. These reviews might provide guidance for your purchase.
But who is looking for guidance on their purchase of potato fucking waffles? They might be versatile (although they're not, as I discussed briefly above), but they're still just waffles. Who are the people so conflicted about their grocery purchase that they're scouring the internet looking for advice? Are they going to be crippled with guilt if they feel they've spent their £1.24 unwisely?
Even if you haven't tried them before, you must have some idea what their going to be like. You're probably not expecting some kind of gourmand epiphany through the consumption of these processed food-grids. If you're on the fence, try them! Live a little! Life's too short to sweat the little things (even if the little things are greasy squares).
[Note to self: pitch new grease-based version of Hollywood Squares. Slippery celebrities answer questions, slide off the stage, break hips. Ratings.]
But the biggest problem isn't the people who read the reviews on the internet. The more interesting question is: who writes the reviews of Birds Eye Potato Waffles?
PhilT81 writes:
They really are Waffly Versatile!
Advantages: Taste, Convenience, Versatility
Disadvantages: None
There are no disadvantages. He obviously hasn't put as much thought into the versatility issue as I have. Amateur.
welshwickedone writes:
What You Get:
Each waffle is approximately 4 inches (20cm) wide, 5 inches (22.5cm) long and about 1/4 inch (1cm) thick.
I'm glad someone has taken the time to do this. It's useful for everyone. If anyone with a 3.5 inch mouth was thinking of buying some waffles and eating them whole, they'd know not to make the purchase. Good for them.
Lovin_Angel has written a fucking thesis:
The experience that led to me to buy this product was a rare one, to say the least! I was actually shopping on my own! (On your own?? I hear you say) Yes it is true. I was allowed to the supermarket without Kyrtis. This is where those of you who do not have children start frowning at the screen. Well let me tell you, that you do not know how lucky you are to be able to walk round the supermarket without a child whinging because they do not want to sit in the trolley, but then when you take them out they run riot. It is definitely one of the most stressful experiences – ever! (Except watching Top of the Pops nowadays). So, there I was wandering around in a zombie like daze staring at the products available and they looked so different to usual. That is because when I have Kyrtis with me all the products are a blur as I race round trying to shop and find my son at the same time. I was amazed at how transfixed I was by the whole ‘shopping on my own’ experience.
I don't even know where to start with this one.
Ok, I do. Kyrtis?
KYRTIS?
Her son sounds like the hero of a low-budget 80s sci-fi film.
["Oh my god! The thrusters are shot! We're going down! Who could have done this? Wait a minute! Who's that on that space-chopper?
I don't believe it! Kyrtis! You son-of-a-bitch! Kyrtis!
KYRTIS!!!" *BOOM*]
Secondly, what's her issue with Top of the Pops? Especially nowadays (I assume this was written before its cancellation)? I can understand not liking modern music, but 'one of the most stressful experiences - ever!'? Why is it so stressful? Maybe she (and I'm going to assume it's a woman) was jilted by one of the producers. Maybe she was tortured under a South American dictatorship whilst they played the theme tune. The good thing about TV, as far as stressful experiences go, is it has a handy 'off' switch which can be used at any time.
Thirdly, she responds to imaginary questions from the reader "(On your own?? I hear you say)". What kind of nutcase does that?
"Uh, Paul...?"
Quiet, you.
Anyway, that review is a masterpiece. I might have to revisit that site and see what they have to say about other products.
I should stop now, because I've written too much for any sane person to stand.
For the record, I actually quite like Birds Eye Potato Waffles. I like to dip them in engine oil, then roast them in the heat of the Earth's core.
That's the good thing about the product. Plenty of options.
Birds Eye Potato Waffles are waffly versatile.
And they are. They are waffly versatile. But let's face it: that is damning with faint praise.
Even the most waffly versatile foodstuff isn't that versatile in the grand scheme of things. Your options with potato waffles are still fairly limited.
Grill 'em, bake 'em, fry 'em, eat 'em.
Immediately, without any further analysis, we can see that there are only four options here.
Four options does not constitute versatility. I can think of four ways to wear a baseball cap. I wouldn't say that it's a particularly versatile piece of clothing. It is still (regardless of the configuration) in essence, a hat.
One of your waffle options is 'eat 'em'.
Eat 'em?
That's not versatility! That's not a wacky alternative option! If you're producing a foodstuff, its being edible is expected. It's standard. That is a default option for any food.
"Why not try, for a laugh, eating the waffles?!"
Thanks for that suggestion. I was planning on using them as hilarious Elton John-style glasses. I was going to construct an ineffective prison cell. I was going to use it as a tiny cattle-grid so that any beef products I might be eating aren't able to escape the plate. And now you're telling me I can eat them as well? Praise the Lord! These waffles must be some kind of all-purpose super-food!
(That was sarcasm, by the way. I'm actually quite sceptical about the versatility claims made by the advert - perceptive readers may have caught that)
I can't help but wonder why they decided to market this product on the basis of its versatility, when it's not really evident. It's almost as if the product has NO OTHER APPEALING ASPECTS WHATSOEVER.
I also object to the advert on linguistic grounds. You can't completely change the meaning of a word by sticking an adjective in front of it.
"Oh, we know they're not versatile. But they are waffly versatile. That's different."
You can't start doing that. There'd be anarchy.
Try new Marlboro Lights! They're tobacco-ly good for you!
Nestle - The exploitationally ethical snack company!
They try to escape this semantic cul-de-sac by changing the slogan to 'awffly versatile' at the end. But they spell it wrong, so they can't be sued: "I'm sorry you are not pleased with the variety of cooking options presented by our waffles, madam. But it clearly says at the end of the advert 'awffly versatile', not 'awfully versatile'. As you may know, 'awffly' is actually a Welsh word meaning: 'not'."
So, all in all, I think we can agree that Birds Eye have let us down (also in the odd decision not to have an apostrophe in their company's name).
***
So Paul, I hear you saying, that was probably too much time spent analysing a ten-second advert from the eighties.
Well, you might think that. But I think I can milk the waffle-topic a little bit more. That's because I did a Google search for the product, and came up with this website.
It's a site with reviews.
Reviews of waffles.
I didn't know such things existed, but I'm delighted that they do.
I know there are reviews on places like Amazon. But these are usually for things like DVDs and books. Things that are complicated and interesting to review. These reviews might provide guidance for your purchase.
But who is looking for guidance on their purchase of potato fucking waffles? They might be versatile (although they're not, as I discussed briefly above), but they're still just waffles. Who are the people so conflicted about their grocery purchase that they're scouring the internet looking for advice? Are they going to be crippled with guilt if they feel they've spent their £1.24 unwisely?
Even if you haven't tried them before, you must have some idea what their going to be like. You're probably not expecting some kind of gourmand epiphany through the consumption of these processed food-grids. If you're on the fence, try them! Live a little! Life's too short to sweat the little things (even if the little things are greasy squares).
[Note to self: pitch new grease-based version of Hollywood Squares. Slippery celebrities answer questions, slide off the stage, break hips. Ratings.]
But the biggest problem isn't the people who read the reviews on the internet. The more interesting question is: who writes the reviews of Birds Eye Potato Waffles?
PhilT81 writes:
They really are Waffly Versatile!
Advantages: Taste, Convenience, Versatility
Disadvantages: None
There are no disadvantages. He obviously hasn't put as much thought into the versatility issue as I have. Amateur.
welshwickedone writes:
What You Get:
Each waffle is approximately 4 inches (20cm) wide, 5 inches (22.5cm) long and about 1/4 inch (1cm) thick.
I'm glad someone has taken the time to do this. It's useful for everyone. If anyone with a 3.5 inch mouth was thinking of buying some waffles and eating them whole, they'd know not to make the purchase. Good for them.
Lovin_Angel has written a fucking thesis:
The experience that led to me to buy this product was a rare one, to say the least! I was actually shopping on my own! (On your own?? I hear you say) Yes it is true. I was allowed to the supermarket without Kyrtis. This is where those of you who do not have children start frowning at the screen. Well let me tell you, that you do not know how lucky you are to be able to walk round the supermarket without a child whinging because they do not want to sit in the trolley, but then when you take them out they run riot. It is definitely one of the most stressful experiences – ever! (Except watching Top of the Pops nowadays). So, there I was wandering around in a zombie like daze staring at the products available and they looked so different to usual. That is because when I have Kyrtis with me all the products are a blur as I race round trying to shop and find my son at the same time. I was amazed at how transfixed I was by the whole ‘shopping on my own’ experience.
I don't even know where to start with this one.
Ok, I do. Kyrtis?
KYRTIS?
Her son sounds like the hero of a low-budget 80s sci-fi film.
["Oh my god! The thrusters are shot! We're going down! Who could have done this? Wait a minute! Who's that on that space-chopper?
I don't believe it! Kyrtis! You son-of-a-bitch! Kyrtis!
KYRTIS!!!" *BOOM*]
Secondly, what's her issue with Top of the Pops? Especially nowadays (I assume this was written before its cancellation)? I can understand not liking modern music, but 'one of the most stressful experiences - ever!'? Why is it so stressful? Maybe she (and I'm going to assume it's a woman) was jilted by one of the producers. Maybe she was tortured under a South American dictatorship whilst they played the theme tune. The good thing about TV, as far as stressful experiences go, is it has a handy 'off' switch which can be used at any time.
Thirdly, she responds to imaginary questions from the reader "(On your own?? I hear you say)". What kind of nutcase does that?
"Uh, Paul...?"
Quiet, you.
Anyway, that review is a masterpiece. I might have to revisit that site and see what they have to say about other products.
I should stop now, because I've written too much for any sane person to stand.
For the record, I actually quite like Birds Eye Potato Waffles. I like to dip them in engine oil, then roast them in the heat of the Earth's core.
That's the good thing about the product. Plenty of options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)