bruno
est malade
*chuckles*I've left this as a link, as it's moderately distasteful, but might make you chuckle:
http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/2944.cuteycat.jpg
*chuckles*I've left this as a link, as it's moderately distasteful, but might make you chuckle:
http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/2944.cuteycat.jpg
People in queues who stand slightly next to you instead of behind you, try and edge past you at the airport.
People in supermarkets who pile up their shopping really high on the conveyor belt as if that will somehow help them get out of the shop faster (and the ones behind me who get upset when I am leisurely even though the bottleneck is at the cashier, not at the unloading stage)
OK that one was really pathetic of me maybe.......
People who just don't have the foggiest conecpt of queueing. In my experience this includes the entire population of Germany.
The spelling of the word 'queueing'.
Supermarkets full stop, I really, really hate them.
Yeah, all those good-quality food and grocery items, conveniently assembled in one big, clean, neatly laid-out shop...it's enough to make one's blood boil.
(I kind of know what you mean, though.)
I don't think theres any pleasure to be had from shopping in a supermarket is there? It's just one of those things you have to do like you go to the post office to post a letter or go to the bank to sort out money.
I find the worst thing about it is Asda FM in my local Asda, some hospital radio type yakking on about celebrity gossip and special offers on bacon between james blunt tunes.
At airports when they announce boarding as embarkation, twats![]()
The 'embarkation' thing is, I think, just another example of people in dull service jobs trying to make mundane announcements sound more exciting or important by using unnecessarily long words or phrasing. You get this on trains a lot: "The buffet, which is located in carriage C..." - why not just "..which is in carriage C.."?
I disagree, I think the way most people (mis)use the phrase is as if to imply that the rule is somehow un-'proven' until an exception is found - after which it is 'proven'. Which is obviously nonsense!
Rules, as I understand them, don't have exceptions. 'Rules of thumb' and 'guidelines' have exceptions.
in law, which perhaps differs here from science, the exception modifies the rule