Saturday, 6 March 2010

Buzz-buzz-a-diddle it.

From the Ninemsn news website, Saturday, March 6, 2010. (Click here to read article)

The first tag they used as a link to the main story was bad enough:
"Suspicious sounds: Woman calls police over vibrator." They then compounded the error with the news item's heading:
"German police summoned over vibrator."

Ahh! those fun-loving, liberal-minded Germans. Trust them to come up with a unique design for an everyday communications device. Brings to mind a whole set of images, doesn't it?

But there are some things I'm a bit unsure about: Which end do you talk into? Which end do you put to your ear? Does it have a dial? or a push-button console, and - again- at which end?

Which brings me to another question. What will the ring tone sound like? Kids might be a bit reluctant to answer it, worried they might be interrupting something.

There's also a possibility of those people who choose to own this device being somewhat socially isolated. A whole new set of signs, forbidding their operation in certain public areas, will have to be organised. In church: "For the comfort of other churchgoers, please refrain from using your vibrator." At the movies: "Please turn off your vibrator so others can enjoy the movie." At a hospital: "Use of vibrators in the Intensive Care Unit strictly forbidden!" Also, you wouldn't be able to take it with you if you were going to paricipate in a sex party. Imagine the confusion if it started to ring.

So, what was the thinking behind creating this device?

I have a couple of ideas.

Firstly; it was created for undercover vice agents who may need to infiltrate illegal brothels. Obviously they would require a handy tool that enabled them to maintain contact with headquarters, without it attracting undue attention.

Secondly; it was the brainchild of some poor husband who was sick of the huge phone bills constantly being run up by his wife. By coming up with this design, wife took one look at it and said, "I'm not putting that thing anywhere near my mouth!"

Puts a whole new slant on, "I'll give you a buzz tomorrow." doesn't it?

Sunday, 14 February 2010


From the Ninemsn news website, Sunday, February 14, 2010. (Click here to read article)

"Shark bites woman in the Whitsundays."

Now, I'm not eaxctly sure where the Whitsundays may be located on a woman, but it sounds bloody painful!

This will cure what ails you.

Malapropisms are sentences in which a word is substituted for another word that sounds similar, but often ends in a comical result, and embarrassment for the perpetrator. You can read some corkers here.

This shining example comes via e-mail from a friend;

"I thought of The Butcher Shop immediately earlier tonight when "K" made a comment that had me laughing for the rest of the night. He said he felt as though he was getting another cold and he might have some euthanasia tonight."

If ever there was a cure worse than the disease ...


From the Herald Sun, Wednesday, March 4, 2009.

One would think that such action would be superfluous. I guess, though, it is the simplest method of disposing of a bomb, but I suspect that it wouldn't exactly be a long career.

Will the real Rip Van Winkle please wake up.

From the Herald Sun, Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

At last! Proof that rumours of the existence of Rip Van Winkle might have some basis in fact. Why else would such a prestigious hospital as the Austin advertise for people who are able to sleep for at least three months?

Either that, or they're simply advertising for teenagers 18 years or older.

Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Bathing beauty.

From the Herald Sun, Thursday, May 20, 2004.

"Baths Sink Again."

What, they couldn't put the plug in? And isn't the water supposed to be in the bath, not the other way around?

Sunday, 2 March 2008

Agricultural argy-bargy.

From the Herald Sun, Thursday, February 21, 2008.

"Farmers plan pipe fight."

Whatever happened to the Marquis of Queensberry rules?

I don't know about you, but I find the image of irate farmers gathered in a paddock somewhere, angrily wielding lengths of piping, a bit disturbing. And what brought all this about? Was it some dispute over water rights? Perhaps there were some accusations of cattle duffing flying around?

And where are the police in this matter? Have they taken steps to prevent this spot of biffo, or have they found the manpower required to be too much of a drain on their resources, and will just watch to make sure no innocents get hurt?

I know farmers can be a bit boisterous, and tend to deal with things in their own way, but really.

No littering.

From the Herald Sun, Friday, February 22, 2008.

"Office plans hit roadblock."

Must have been a slow news day for the Herald Sun. Why else would they have published an item about a set of building blueprints falling on a roadblock?

I suppose it would have been disastrous for the person who dropped them, especially if had been a windy day. And it might have been newsworthy if they had fallen from a great height, narrowly misssing pedestrians below. But, a set of papers hitting an obstruction in the road?

I don't know, it just doesn't seem to have as much impact as one would be lead to believe by the headline.

Lost and found.

Many thanks to Gina E for closing this case.

"Bug which breaks down chemicals found"

You see, that's the trouble with scientists. They're so engrossed in their experiments, they're constantly walking around in a daze and they're always misplacing things. But not for them the usual everyday items you or I might mislay, like the car keys or our glasses. Oh no! They leave lying around less innocuous things: bugs which break down chemicals.

Honestly, you'd think they would be a little bit more careful. Having something like that roaming around free, causing who knows what kind of damage, just isn't on.

I guess it all depends on which chemicals it breaks down. For instance, if it broke down carbon monoxide emissions from car exhausts, that wouldn't really be a bad thing, would it? But what it it only targeted Theobromine, which is the active ingredient in chocolate and is what gives the confectionary its "buzz"? There'd be some very upset choc-a-holics out there.

Maybe if they had discovered the bug instead.

Friday, 15 February 2008

Well, the word "murder" is in the title.

Found guilty of murdering the English language is Melbourne TV Channel 10.

In the promo for their new series "Women's Murder Club", the opening line is "Catching crooks in killer heels has never been a problem for Lindsay."

This statement - small as it is - gives us such a wide scope of "Oh! That is so wrong." Let's examine the evidence.

"Catching crooks in killer heels has never been a problem for Lindsay."

Well, of course it hasn't. How hard would it be to catch a criminal wearing high-heeled shoes? Even a person as unfit as I am wouldn't have any problems catching up with them.

And why is she only focusing on catching criminals who wear them? Doesn't she chase crooks who wear other forms of footwear? Perhaps she has a fetish for Stilettos? Or maybe a thing for blokes in womans' shoes? Maybe they're actually Lindsays' shoes which have been stolen, and she's trying to get them back? Or could it be that she is a member of that elite part of law enforcement known as the fashion police?

I don't know. But I guess, as Lindsay is the lead character in the series and thus needs to be able to catch the bad guys by the end of each episode, the writers were just ensuring that no one lost the plot and there were no slip ups. Or would that be lace-ups or slip-ons?

God help her, though, if one of the criminals decides to improvise and put on a pair of Nikes. She might need two episodes to catch him.

Another possibility is that Lindsay isn't chasing down crooks who are wearing high-heeled shoes, but is in fact trying to apprehend shoes that murder people. I mean, we've all heard the expression, "These shoes are killing me." Maybe one of the shows' writers decided to take that concept and run with it - no pun intended.

This would imply that the person wearing the shoes is also complicit in the crimes being committed. Otherwise they'd simply remove the footwear, wouldn't they? Unless, of course, the shoes have some kind of evil possession over them. I don't know, it all sounds a little far fetched to me. I mean, I've heard of people being slave to fashion, but really?

Then there is the other likelihood; that this is actually what is meant by people when they say their feet are killing them. Though how the feet might actually achieve this is beyond me. And why is it only the heels? You'd think the toes would have to be aware of what was going on, being as they are in such close proximity.

And is it both feet, or just the one? Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if one remembers the famous case involving Madonnas' heels, when her right heel said to her left heel, "Hello! I don't believe we've met before."

I don't know, the whole thing seems a bit corny to me and, in order to maintain the viewers' interest, the show would have to move along at a blistering pace. And, to be honest, I'm getting a little footsore chasing this one around. I might have bit of a rest now.