Monday 14 January 2013

14.1.13 Belt Loop Scandal & Other Questions

Belt Loops

It is quite simply lazy on the part of manufacturers to provide just five belt loops on a pair of trousers.  Obviously two always need to be positioned either side of the central front button or clip, and generally there's one at the back, in the middle.  These three stalwarts of trouser design mean there's symmetry and some common sense regarding the main anchor points.  That leaves two expanses of waistband that need to be given the means to allow assistance from a belt.  To have just a single loop on each side in that gap is skimping big-time.  The proper number of supplementary loops in that space on each side is two, giving seven in total.  Check your trousers, people.

Andrex Wet Wipes

Why the hell has some cunt decided that we now need to wipe our arses with wet wipes? The pathetic adverts are totally misguided, and I notice that they are particularly aimed at women.  I have no real inclination to spend five times as much by using damp wipes instead of toilet roll, and I suggest these wipes are rather less friendly to the planet and any notion of protecting the environment, despite the stupid confirmation that they can be flushed away. Many things can be fucking flushed, but that doesn't mean they should be.  Go and invent something useful, Andrex.  I know, how about providing toilet rolls in paper outer covers (like you used to) rather than the non-degradable polythene!

Darts

Last week we had the televising of the world championships.  I must say that for a short spell, darts can indeed be of mild interest and be entertaining. However, there are two important things that I must pass comment on.  The first is actually to state that Darts is most definitely NOT a 'sport'.  It's a game. It's a very good game, actually, but certainly not a sport.  The second is the ask why on earth it is necessary for the BBC to insist on showing action replays.  Now, first, I apologise for using this term, as there's clearly no 'action' involved.  Second, I should point out that seeing a dart move slowly through the air and land in a small section of the board that's between 1 and 5 square centimetres is hardly enthralling, informative, entertaining or varied enough to make me want to watch.  Once I've seen a metal dart land in a double-sixteen section a few times, I've no need to see it any more, in slow motion.  So why the slow motion replays?  Baffling.

Alex Zane

Why is it that the only thing Alex Zane can do is count down from 50.  All we see him do on TV is present the top 50 of something-or-other.  Worse, though, is the fact that the programmes could be improved upon in one respect - by the removal of Alex!  It worked with You've Been Framed.  As soon as Harry Hill took over and decided to use voice-over commentary rather than a studio-based approach, the success was instant.  Alex, get a mike, don't appear in front of the screen, and avoid therefore the inane introductions to each section of clips about whatever the fuck you're counting down about.  Thanks a million - or fifty anyway.

Phone Scams

Why do television 'reality' shows with phone voting only ever invite us to vote for the ones we want to save? I know the answer, of course, and as ever it is to do with money.  If there are twelve contestants, then voting for 'your favourite', as the presenters so commonly put it, is not of direct consequence, as the end result depends on the collective voting patterns of all those participating.  In essence, a single vote for one of twelve means a watered down vote which goes into the mix.  In any event, the incentive for voting is to a large degree backwards.  Really we ought to be voting for the fucker we want to go out.

I do not waste money voting on these shows, mainly because of the system outlined above.  If one twat is going home then I want to vote which one it will be; I don't want to vote eleven times to save all the others.  As I said, the money spent on voting by silly people is key to these programmes and many place multiple votes.  I suggest that sooner or later someone in TV might just have enough bottle to list the numbers to phone, in order to select who will fuck off.  In such circumstances, I will then be pleased to consider joining in, as I feel my vote would then be directed a little more accurately at the result I desire.


...

No comments:

Post a Comment