Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol 5)
Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Frankly I'm not sure why anyone would *want* to be subjected to the banality of their partner's emails. Unless your interests are 100% aligned, you are going to get a load of stuff that is relevant to them and not to you.
Why would you *not* want separate email addresses? Do you share a mobile phone as well?
Landline? Why would you *not* want separate email addresses? Do you share a mobile phone as well?
But there's a place for a "family" email address perhaps - to which both/all parties have access? My parents have had one email address which they've used for years, they had it back when the internet started becoming really popular amongst consumers but didn't think they'd need their own for everything etc. And they still use it now for logging on to deal with utilities etc, and for family organising stuff. But both have their own email addresses which they've had for less time, but need for the situation as noted above for individual things.
People who ride quad bikes on the road.
New style bags of peanuts or crisps that don't open like they used to - by just pulling the top apart and getting stuck in.
Wtf do you mean 'Tear here'? All I want to do is stick my hand in and eat, htf am I supposed to get my hand in that fecking mouse hole?
New style bags of peanuts or crisps that don't open like they used to - by just pulling the top apart and getting stuck in.
Wtf do you mean 'Tear here'? All I want to do is stick my hand in and eat, htf am I supposed to get my hand in that fecking mouse hole?
Shakermaker said:
But there's a place for a "family" email address perhaps - to which both/all parties have access? My parents have had one email address which they've used for years, they had it back when the internet started becoming really popular amongst consumers but didn't think they'd need their own for everything etc. And they still use it now for logging on to deal with utilities etc, and for family organising stuff. But both have their own email addresses which they've had for less time, but need for the situation as noted above for individual things.
That sounds reasonable. 
I guess it all comes down to what you use email for.
daqinggegg said:
People asking for favours, but spicing it up, to appear more enticing. However, at the last minute they then reveal the true extent of what is involved.
...
...
!!!Similar story. Manager dropped right at the end of a meeting, almost as an after thought! A major change to working hours! Tried to pass it off as something so minor! Needless to say once meeting was finished. It became the number one subject of conversation for the rest of the day. Productivity fell through the floor, so much in fact the deputy was despatched to try and cajole people into working a bit harder
Shakermaker said:
Jamie Oliver ...
I don't think that's beyond reason. Man is a f
king helmet of the highest order. Hes the f
king reason we've gone from 2 litre bottles of Coke to 1.5Litres for the same fking price! I like fat coke. How dare he push my cost of living up because he feels I should be "protected" from myself. For reference I currently weight a fraction under 12 stone at 6'1. His socialist-esque "government knows best" is disgusting! Who the fk is that mockney fkface dipst !?!?If I had my way he'd be on a one way space mission into the Sun!
Rich_W said:
Hes the fking reason we've gone from 2 litre bottles of Coke to 1.5Litres for the same fking price! I like fat coke. How dare he push my cost of living up because he feels I should be "protected" from myself. For reference I currently weight a fraction under 12 stone at 6'1. His socialist-esque "government knows best" is disgusting! Who the fk is that mockney fkface dipst !?!?
I bet you have a lower BMI than Jamie Oliver.king reason we've gone from 2 litre bottles of Coke to 1.5Litres for the same fking price! I like fat coke. How dare he push my cost of living up because he feels I should be "protected" from myself. For reference I currently weight a fraction under 12 stone at 6'1. His socialist-esque "government knows best" is disgusting! Who the fk is that mockney fkface dipst !?!?As I mentioned in the advert thread, he's quite fat these days.
CanAm said:
Well yes; but conversely how do you feel about people who don't even know which way up their own country's flag flies?
I don't care in the slightest, I'd guess 95% of people don't even realise it's not completely symmetrical. There's no need for faux outrage.I'm Welsh, so our flag is fairly self-explanatory as to which way up it's meant to be, apart from the utter heathens who face the dragon away from the pole!!!!
CanAm said:
CC07 PEU said:
aholes who think they're super smart just because they know which way up the union jack is meant to fly.
Well yes; but conversely how do you feel about people who don't even know which way up their own country's flag flies?holes who think they're super smart just because they know which way up the union jack is meant to fly. Still, it made me laugh when the new "tactical recognition flash" patches were introduced for uniform sleeves. The official roll-out was still slowly churning out the flashes unit-by-unit. Our chefs (Royal Logistics Corps) were doing some "army in the public eye" event, so their boss pulled strings and got some recognition patches for his minions. Only because they weren't officially meant to have them, they didn't come with fitting instructions. It's basically a square, divided diagonally between blue and yellow...
...and they only went and sewed them on upside down, the silly sausages! Oh, how we Royal Engineers pointed, and mocked, and laughed. (Our patches are the same colours as our Corps flag, horizontal red and blue stripes, and the same upside down as right way up.
Currently annoying me beyond reason?
Farnborough International Air Show.
Why?
Because it's trade week, a lot of airliners have been displayed today, and up right now is The Airbus A400M military turboprop transport aircraft. it weighs over 76 tonnes empty and can carry up to 50 tonnes of highly flammable fuel. Yet it's carrying out "dynamic manoeuvres" including extreme changes of height and direction, while pointed straight at my house.
Not annoying in and of itself.
No, what's annoying is the fact that I can't take a stroll or ride my bike along the Basingstoke Canal towpath, nor drive along the A323 Fleet Road while the air show is on because "in this post-Shoreham era, the risk to public safety is too great".
Wowsers! So I have to run the risk of a dirty great Airbus airliner experiencing a double bird strike and complete loss of controlled flight (we've two large lakes and a canal in the area, one of the lakes is a waterfowl reserve so a flock of geese isn't a surprising event locally) while pointing at my house, a risk which I've no control over. Yet if I were to take a calculated risk (my own bloody risk to take, no one else's) to walk past the end of the runway during the flying display, nanny wouldn't permit it, and nanny has closed the army training area and perched a number of security guards on camping chairs to make sure everyone obeys nanny.
Post-Shoreham safety my pastey white arse! It's all a con to reduce the number of sites from which it's possible to view the flying display for free, the penny-pinching fktards. If it isn't safe to keep public roads open during an air show, then the whole shooting match ought to fk off to some former RAF runway in the back of beyond where the only things aeroplanes risk falling on if they fk it up are poor dumb animals. And no, the population of Aldershot (sadly) can't be lumped under that definition...
Farnborough International Air Show.
Why?
Because it's trade week, a lot of airliners have been displayed today, and up right now is The Airbus A400M military turboprop transport aircraft. it weighs over 76 tonnes empty and can carry up to 50 tonnes of highly flammable fuel. Yet it's carrying out "dynamic manoeuvres" including extreme changes of height and direction, while pointed straight at my house.
Not annoying in and of itself.
No, what's annoying is the fact that I can't take a stroll or ride my bike along the Basingstoke Canal towpath, nor drive along the A323 Fleet Road while the air show is on because "in this post-Shoreham era, the risk to public safety is too great".
Wowsers! So I have to run the risk of a dirty great Airbus airliner experiencing a double bird strike and complete loss of controlled flight (we've two large lakes and a canal in the area, one of the lakes is a waterfowl reserve so a flock of geese isn't a surprising event locally) while pointing at my house, a risk which I've no control over. Yet if I were to take a calculated risk (my own bloody risk to take, no one else's) to walk past the end of the runway during the flying display, nanny wouldn't permit it, and nanny has closed the army training area and perched a number of security guards on camping chairs to make sure everyone obeys nanny.
Post-Shoreham safety my pastey white arse! It's all a con to reduce the number of sites from which it's possible to view the flying display for free, the penny-pinching f
ktards. If it isn't safe to keep public roads open during an air show, then the whole shooting match ought to fk off to some former RAF runway in the back of beyond where the only things aeroplanes risk falling on if they fk it up are poor dumb animals. And no, the population of Aldershot (sadly) can't be lumped under that definition...Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff