Tag: blue

7 Reasons Blu-Tack Is Dangerous

When you think about it, the fact that there are not more pencil case injuries is staggering. Stationery is dangerous. You can staple your thumb to the wall, you can poke your eye out with a pencil, you can get a rubber lodged up places. All these potential hazards pale into insignificance however when you place them next to… wait for it… Blu-Tack.

Incredible Blu-Tack Spider by Elizabeth Thompson

1. Wall Collapses. Sadly, this is based on personal experience. Having used Blu-Tack to affix the DAB aerial to the wall in the hope of being able to hear Test Match Special, I then tried to pull it down as soon Geoffrey Boycott got his hands on the microphone. Unfortunately, I pulled a bit too hard. And while the aerial successfully came away from the wall, so did a non-too inconsiderate amount of plaster and plasterboard. It’s tough stuff Blu-Tack.

2. Monsters. Blu-Tack can be turned into giant spiders. Look at it! It’s huge! And not exactly un-lifelike either. Forget you’ve made this when you wander to the bathroom in the middle of the night and you’re going to get the fright of your life.

3. Typing. I like playing with Blu-Tack. It’s probably the equivalent of a comfort blanket. I have a blob (currently spherical in shape) on my desk and I always find myself rolling it around with my fingers. Half the time I don’t even realise I’m doing it. Nor do I realise that little bits get left on the tips of my fingers. This can cause problems. The other day, for instance, I was writing an email and my finger became stuck on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Marc still hasn’t replied.

4. Baldness. People suggest alopecia is the quickest and most terrifying way to lose hair. I disagree. Get Blu-Tack in your hair and it is there for good. The only way to get rid of it is to shave your head. Which is fine if you are thinking of popping down to the local Hare Krishna Temple, but not so great if your name is Rapunzel.

5. Goggles. Two years ago there was the bizarre story reported that teachers at one school ordered children to wear goggles before handling Blu-Tack. Their reasoning (and they one gave one) was that it prevented children from rubbing it into their eyes. I would say though, that wearing goggles is far more dangerous. Not only could it cause name-calling – four-eyes etc – you can be sure that the class bully will go up to one child, pull the goggles away from his eyes and then let go. With a thud the elastic will snap the goggles back into the unsuspecting child’s face and case rings around the eyes. You’re just giving bullies the equipment to bully. Blu-Tack shouldn’t be anywhere near the classroom. Over 18s only I say.

6. Spelling-Bee. Erm. It’s spelt blue. What sort of lesson are Blu-Tack setting to the younger generation if they so willingly spell words as they sound and not as they are rightly spelt? We’d have books full of ‘Terradactuls’ and ‘bagets’ and ‘leperds’ and ‘curnels’. What an abomination that would be. Blu-Tack are having a dangerous effect on our youth. Speaking of which…

7. Colour-Blindness. In their infinite wisdom Blu-Tack also sell Yello-Tack. Only instead of calling it Yello-Tack, they call it Blu-Tack. Which is bloody confusing. What happens if a baby’s first words in life are, “What’s this mummy?” as they hold up yellow Blu-Tack. The mother will say, “It’s Blu-Tack dear.” Followed by, “Oh my goodness! The baby’s talking! The baby’s talking!” In all the excitement they will totally miss the fact that they have just taught their baby that yellow is in fact blue. That will be ingrained on the baby for life.

October 13, 2011
7 Reasons Marc Is Wrong About The Nautical Look

Yesterday, Marc wrote a post called, 7 Reasons That The Nautical Look Is Objectionable. I read it aghast. How could someone so intelligent be so wrong? Today, I aim to put right his wrongs.

1. Saturation Point. Too much of a thing is never good – which is why I’m editing this with a hangover – and the nautical look is everywhere. It’s finally reached saturation point and now it seems that almost every woman in the UK is dressed as a sailor. Now, there’s nothing wrong with women dressing as sailors, or anything else that takes their fancy, but that doesn’t mean that every woman should dress as one. Wouldn’t it be nice to see some of them dressing in outfits without horizontal stripes and rope motifs? Perhaps as spacewomen or conquistadors. Or Minnie Mouse. Or just as themselves. Our high streets look like a production of HMS Pinafore at the moment. What Marc seems to be forgetting here is why nearly every woman in the UK is dressing as a sailor. It’s fairly simple. This is the UK. We are a sea-faring nation. It’s in our blood. So when Marc asks why aren’t women dressing as Minnie Mouse or conquistadors, it’s because British women have no emotional attachment to these themes. And because they’d look stupid.

2. Confusion. It’s confusing. Sailors are sailors: we can tell that by their uniforms and their weatherbeaten faces. Women are women: we can tell that because they smell nice and have soft hands. But the nautical look blurs the issue somewhat. No, it doesn’t. Nor is it confusing. It might be confusing to Marc, but that is because he doesn’t have the required imagination. I see nothing wrong with this overlap. In fact I see a very positive outcome. The classic ‘woman dressed as a sailor’ fantasy. Allow me to demonstrate using science…or maths (It’s definitely one of those things).

A Venn diagram illustrating the 'woman dressed as sailor' fantasy.

3. Anchor. When choosing an outfit with a decorative motif, is it really wise to choose one that rhymes with wanker? Yes, it is. Much more wise than to have a decorative motif of – and I do apologise in advance for saying this – a punt.

4. The Next Step. Many women are currently dressing as sailors, but what if this fad takes a slight twist? What if sailors start dressing as women? A fair point you would think. Unfortunately, Marc has this the wrong way round. It’s the fact that sailors originally started dressing as women – in the 1800’s when men were on ships together for months and months on end – that has made the women adopt the nautical theme for themselves.

5. Weather. Now I’m sure the nautical look would look fine and dandy when worn on the back of a motor-yacht moored in Porta Banus or Cannes. But it isn’t. It’s being worn in Manchester, where it rains all summer. The last time I checked, rain was wet. And it formed puddles. The sea is wet and is one big puddle. Wet weather, therefore, would seem to be perfect for the nautical look.

6. Do It Properly. The nautical look is being done in a half-hearted manner. Wearing a stripy top under a blue jacket is lame. If you want to do the nautical look well, wear a tricorn hat, an eye-patch, a peg-leg, a hand-hook; carry a parrot around. Wear vast epaulettes dripping with gold braid and the full cuff insignia of an Admiral; accessorise your outfit with a telescope or a sextant. Ditch your umbrella in favour of a Sowester hat, oilskins and a life-jacket. Grow a beard. This isn’t really doing it properly. This is dressing like a pirate. Marc wants you to drop your nauticals in favour of his pirate vision. Don’t do it.

7. Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton’s a big fan of the nautical look. Paris Hilton’s also an idiot. Do you really want to dress like an idiot? I use Paris Hilton as a general guide to life. You can too. Whoever you are, whatever you’re about to do, ask yourself the question: Would Paris Hilton do this? If the answer is yes, don’t do it. Okay, he’s not totally wrong here. Marc is right on one aspect. Paris Hilton is an idiot. But actually, if we are honest with ourselves, we are also a little bit jealous. Paris Hilton is a millionairess – in her own right – for doing pretty much nothing with no talent. I like that idea. I like the idea of becoming a millionairess for doing pretty much nothing, with no talent. And, if adopting the nautical look is part of the ‘doing nothing’ masterplan, then I’m in. And I’m not even a woman.

June 8, 2010
7 Reasons That The Nautical Look Is Objectionable

1. Saturation Point. Too much of a thing is never good – which is why I’m editing this with a hangover – and the nautical look is everywhere. It’s finally reached saturation point and now it seems that almost every woman in the UK is dressed as a sailor.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with women dressing as sailors, or anything else that takes their fancy, but that doesn’t mean that every woman should dress as one.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see some of them dressing in outfits without horizontal stripes and rope motifs? Perhaps as spacewomen or conquistadors. Or Minnie Mouse. Or just as themselves. Our high streets look like a production of HMS Pinafore at the moment.

2. Confusion. It’s confusing. Sailors are sailors: we can tell that by their uniforms and their weatherbeaten faces. Women are women: we can tell that because they smell nice and have soft hands. But the nautical look blurs the issue somewhat. Allow me to demonstrate using science…or maths (It’s definitely one of those things).

A Venn diagram which illustrates the inherent confusion caused by the nautical look.

3. Anchor. When choosing an outfit with a decorative motif, is it really wise to choose one that rhymes with wanker? No, it isn’t. Because people will take the piss.  Not having an anchor on your breast pocket insulates you from jibes and cruel humour. The same goes for not having a ship on your handbag.

4. The Next Step. Many women are currently dressing as sailors, but what if this fad takes a slight twist? What if sailors start dressing as women?  It’s confusing enough already, do we really need that?

5. Weather. Now I’m sure the nautical look would look fine and dandy when worn on the back of a motor-yacht moored in Porta Banus or Cannes. But it isn’t. It’s being worn in Manchester, where it rains all summer. And, unlike real sailors, people are wearing stuff that isn’t waterproof. I saw people attired in faux-nautical gear sheltering from rain in a bus shelter yesterday. They looked foolish.

6. Do It Properly. The nautical look is being done in a half-hearted manner. Wearing a stripy top under a blue jacket is lame. If you want to do the nautical look well, wear a tricorn hat, an eye-patch, a peg-leg, a hand-hook; carry a parrot around. Wear vast epaulettes dripping with gold braid and the full cuff insignia of an Admiral; accessorise your outfit with a telescope or a sextant. Ditch your umbrella in favour of a Sowester hat, oilskins and a life-jacket. Grow a beard. This woman demonstrates how to pull off the nautical look properly.

Or you could do what this man did and dress up as a mermaid before sinking without trace. That’s true dedication to the nautical look.

7. Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton’s a big fan of the nautical look. Paris Hilton’s also an idiot. Do you really want to dress like an idiot? I use Paris Hilton as a general guide to life. You can too. Whoever you are, whatever you’re about to do, ask yourself the question: Would Paris Hilton do this? If the answer is yes, don’t do it.

What an anchor.

June 7, 2010
7 Reasons That This Pen is Stupid

1. Shape. When the lid is on, the pen is oval-shaped and it puts me in mind of a rugby ball. That should be a good thing as the Six Nations is on at the moment, but look at the colour. It’s blue. And it’s not even the dark blue of France, it’s light-blue, the colour of the Italian team. Italy are the worst team in the competition – worse even than England. This pen exudes the acrid stench of failure. And I don’t want to smell failure when I’m writing. I want to smell coffee. Or soup.

2. Emasculation. The pen is two inches long. Two inches! To men, having a two-inch-long pen is bad. Having a two-inch-long pen is unmanly. To women, a two-inch-long pen is unsatisfactory too. A big pen is much more desirable to both sexes. Big pen is good. Small pen is bad.

3. Gift. The pen is a gift. The worst kind of gift – it’s a gift from someone who lives in the same house as me. This means that I can’t just put it away in a drawer or re-gift it. I have to keep it here on the desk where I can see it. I can see it right now. It’ll be months before I can move it to the box in the loft where I hide all of the unwanted gifts. Months.

4. Writing. Look at this picture of my hand. Do you see that blue speck in the centre of my palm? (you may need to fetch your glasses for this one) No? I’ll tell you then. It’s the pen. How, you may ask, does a hand that size write with a pen that size? The answer is badly. Very badly. In fact, if I had to use the pen to write this 7 Reasons post, it would be four words long and those words would be “bloody”, “fucking”, ”stupid” and “pen”. And they would be illegible.

5. Blue. It’s a Highlighter pen. In blue. I – like a lot of people – write in blue ink. This means that the pen is completely useless as a highlighter. It has the opposite effect. It’s an obscurer. If I want to make my words appear fuzzy and indistinct, it’s the pen to use. Otherwise, it’s useless.

6. The Horatio Pyewackett Caractacus Fearns test of Pen-Stupidity. I own a cat that attacks pens. If he sees one, he pounces – whether I’m using it or not. When hoovering under the sofa (infrequently), I always find several pens that he’s stolen and then lost under there. Can I get him to attack this pen? No I bloody can’t. And I’ve rubbed catnip on it. Even my cat knows that this pen is stupid.

7. Suppository. I’ve just realised what else the pen reminds me of. It looks like a suppository. Appropriate really, given what I’d do if with the pen if I ever encountered the feckless cretin that designed it. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid bum-pen! Grrrr! I hate this pen!

March 19, 2010