Monday, 31 October 2011
Where Has The Time Gone?
I can't believe it's the last day of October already. To use the old phrase, "Where has the time gone?" The year 2011 seems to have passed by in a flash. It appears the older you become, the years come and go with increasing speed. Before I know it, I will be reaching the age of retirement!
The past couple of years haven't been great for me in the career department, having made a big mistake in leaving a former employer in December 2009. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but it was only a few months afterwards I realised it was the wrong thing to do. I missed the type of work I had been doing there, so for the past year and a half, I've been trying to return to that type of work. I now have the opportunity to do that with a different employer, and I'm hoping for a telephone call from them this week to confirm it.
My fingers are crossed, because I never take anything for granted in this unpredictable world we live in.
The past couple of years haven't been great for me in the career department, having made a big mistake in leaving a former employer in December 2009. I thought I was doing the right thing at the time, but it was only a few months afterwards I realised it was the wrong thing to do. I missed the type of work I had been doing there, so for the past year and a half, I've been trying to return to that type of work. I now have the opportunity to do that with a different employer, and I'm hoping for a telephone call from them this week to confirm it.
My fingers are crossed, because I never take anything for granted in this unpredictable world we live in.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Observation Of Apple Products.
Reading this article about "4 Ways Steve Jobs and Apple Changed the Music Industry" had me cringeing a bit.
First of all, the sentence "For starters, the iPod meant that a listener could hear any song in his library at any time. This allowed users to create their own personal soundtracks, instead of being constrained by a particular time, place or media."
Oh dear, what a hardship! Isn't it terrible being constrained by a particular time, place or media? Even though you can still pick any specific cd and type of music from your collection to listen to, this still isn't sufficient. It has to be a particular song itself to suit your mood for that 5 minutes you are in. Really, there is no need to be that particular! I could never be that specific in wanting to hear a certain song at the present moment I am in.
I laughed at this sentence: “I was on the crosstown bus in Manhattan during a snow storm and had a sudden urge to listen to some Bob Marley. Needless to stay it brightened up my mood and showed me the power of the iPod."
Good grief, that's a bit dramatic. It sounds like a sales pitch to me. It doesn't sound a natural feeling someone would have in this scenario. I can honestly say I've never had a sudden urge to listen to a particular music artist. And definitely not during a snow storm.
Using iTunes is the most popular method of buying music today, but for me, I much prefer to have the product physically in my hands after I've bought it. I like to look at the sleeve and read the notes and lyrics inside after I have put the compact disc in the cd player to play. You can't do that with a downloaded music file. It just sits there anonymously in your device without any character. I will always buy cds rather than download music.
As for the musician heavily using Apple programmes, he says “Live, I use a MacBook Pro with Ableton. In the studio, on a Mac pro, Cubase & After Effects.” He is "now dependent on Apple products to manufacture and refine his sound." I think manufacture is the keyword here. This isn't the natural sounds of a song being written from the heart, but a song manufactured together by computer sounds.
And that's what I hear when I am subjected to modern music on the radio and satellite tv music channels. Songs that have been constructed on a computer, heavily weighed down in production so you can't hear a natural voice or natural instruments. Not much soul and passion being put into that type of music.
I have never owned an iPod or had a need for one. I have never used iTunes or had a need to use it. And I have never used Apple programmes to record music or had a need to do so. But it doesn't stop me making observations about the product!
First of all, the sentence "For starters, the iPod meant that a listener could hear any song in his library at any time. This allowed users to create their own personal soundtracks, instead of being constrained by a particular time, place or media."
Oh dear, what a hardship! Isn't it terrible being constrained by a particular time, place or media? Even though you can still pick any specific cd and type of music from your collection to listen to, this still isn't sufficient. It has to be a particular song itself to suit your mood for that 5 minutes you are in. Really, there is no need to be that particular! I could never be that specific in wanting to hear a certain song at the present moment I am in.
I laughed at this sentence: “I was on the crosstown bus in Manhattan during a snow storm and had a sudden urge to listen to some Bob Marley. Needless to stay it brightened up my mood and showed me the power of the iPod."
Good grief, that's a bit dramatic. It sounds like a sales pitch to me. It doesn't sound a natural feeling someone would have in this scenario. I can honestly say I've never had a sudden urge to listen to a particular music artist. And definitely not during a snow storm.
Using iTunes is the most popular method of buying music today, but for me, I much prefer to have the product physically in my hands after I've bought it. I like to look at the sleeve and read the notes and lyrics inside after I have put the compact disc in the cd player to play. You can't do that with a downloaded music file. It just sits there anonymously in your device without any character. I will always buy cds rather than download music.
As for the musician heavily using Apple programmes, he says “Live, I use a MacBook Pro with Ableton. In the studio, on a Mac pro, Cubase & After Effects.” He is "now dependent on Apple products to manufacture and refine his sound." I think manufacture is the keyword here. This isn't the natural sounds of a song being written from the heart, but a song manufactured together by computer sounds.
And that's what I hear when I am subjected to modern music on the radio and satellite tv music channels. Songs that have been constructed on a computer, heavily weighed down in production so you can't hear a natural voice or natural instruments. Not much soul and passion being put into that type of music.
I have never owned an iPod or had a need for one. I have never used iTunes or had a need to use it. And I have never used Apple programmes to record music or had a need to do so. But it doesn't stop me making observations about the product!
Friday, 30 September 2011
Carlos Tevez.
The refusal of Carlos Tevez to come off the bench for Manchester City as a substitute this week is an absolute disgrace and highlights how spoiled and pampered modern footballers have become. It's the biggest mistake a footballer can ever make... to refuse to play for their club, whether they start the match or are asked to replace a player as a subsitute.
In a regular job, a person would be sacked for refusing to work. Which Tevez did. However, it's a different situation in football because of the worth of the footballer. Tevez is being paid £200,000+ per week and is worth around £40 million to £50 million as a transfer fee. Obscene figures, and why football supporters can no longer relate to the top modern footballers. Financially, we can't begin to imagine what it would be like earning what they do for kicking a football around a pitch.
All of these facts add to the fact that Tevez's behaviour this week was disgraceful. He didn't want to play in a top European match against one of the biggest teams in Europe, and to help his team (who were two goals down at this point) to fight back and get back into the match. Tevez has let himself down, his team mates down, his manager down, and his team's supporters down.
The Manchester City fans paid hard earned money to go to Germany, expecting to watch all of their players give 100% commitment and perform to the best of their capabilities. Carlos Tevez failed to fulfill these obligations, sadly. Apparently, he wasn't mentally and physically able to play for the team when called upon. Why was he sitting on the substitutes bench ready to play? Why didn't he tell his manager he wasn't able to play? Tezez is making excuses for himself because he knows he was badly in the wrong, and will face a lot of abuse and criticism for his actions.
After the match on Sky Sports, Graeme Souness summed it up perfectly when he said, "Tevez is a disgrace to football. The man on the street thinks there's a lot wrong with your modern footballer. Tevez epitomizes what the man on the street thinks is wrong with modern footballers." Souness righty represented the anger of the pundits, media, and fans alike towards Carlos Tevez.
At the moment, Tevez has been suspended for two weeks while his club carry out their investigation into the sorry affair. If he is sacked, Manchester City would lose the 40 to 50 million pounds transfer fee which they won't want to do. A fine won't make any difference because of the obscene amount of money he earns. Hopefully, he will be transfer listed and never play for City again. Potential buyers may be put off by his unwillingness to play this week, but I'm sure a big team will still buy him.
In my opinion, Tevez should receive a 6 months ban by FIFA from playing for any team. After that, Manchester City would receive a transfer fee from any club still willing to buy him. That would be justice, but in football, justice isn't always carried out, sadly.
Back Online.
I have just, somehow, survived a week without access to the internet! I don't know how I did it! You could equate it with living in the jungle for a week without food. Okay, perhaps I am exaggerating, but living without a modern convenience like the internet is strange when you're so used to having it there at your fingertips.
I first went online in 1998, and in the 13 years that have passed, it's very rare I have been without internet access... the very few times when the computer has a fault, and a couple of weekish long courses that I attended out of town. I guess we all take the internet for granted, just sitting there at our service when we need it for all sorts of reasons.
I'm happy to say I comfortably survived without it for a week. I have other things to do in my home, so there was never a time when I was bored and had nothing to do. A couple of times I wished I could have just logged on to find out what people who I follow were saying on Twitter, and what what the trending subjects were. However, I survived, and so here I am back blogging and tweeting. It feels great to be back online!
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Bus Driver.
A month ago, I started training with an employer to be a bus driver, which in the main, I enjoyed. Sadly, it came to an end yesterday when I failed the practical test at the second attempt. Not so much because of driving incompetence, but due to safety and awareness errors.
I have the option of sitting a test privately, with the aim of passing it and being re-employed by the company I was with for my month of training. This all comes at a cost, of course, so I have to think carefully whether I want to pursue a career as a bus driver. At the moment I have mixed feelings.
I am still waiting for a reply from another job I attended an interview for recently. I certainly hope to find out soon whether I have been successful for that position. Fingers crossed.
I have the option of sitting a test privately, with the aim of passing it and being re-employed by the company I was with for my month of training. This all comes at a cost, of course, so I have to think carefully whether I want to pursue a career as a bus driver. At the moment I have mixed feelings.
I am still waiting for a reply from another job I attended an interview for recently. I certainly hope to find out soon whether I have been successful for that position. Fingers crossed.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
BBC And Sky Sports F1 Coverage.
So typical of the BBC to cut back on the amount of F1 motor racing coverage from next year. They will now only broadcast half of the races, while Sky Sports will show every race.
Apparently the decision has to do with cutting costs, but I think the BBC have their priorities elsewhere, in particular the Olympics, which will be staged in London next year. Also, cost savings could have been done in other areas of their F1 coverage, as highlighted here in the final paragraph.
It's also worth remembering Sky Sports have more money, and now dominate sports coverage in the UK. I hope they sign up Martin Brundle, whose opinions on all things F1 I highly value. Who else could do the grid walk as good as him? To me, Brundle is the star of the BBC F1 team, and I want to see him at every F1 race. And that will be on Sky Sports, not the BBC.
A letter regarding the BBC and Sky Sports F1 matter was recently printed in the Radio Times letters section, and to me, it perfectly sums up the problem with the BBC...
"Don't dump expensive celebrity presenters, save on the hour long lead-in and interviews, or abandon the funky special effects. Don't even stop the interesting, but not vital, qualifying sessions. Just chop half the races. Well done, BBC!" Peter Hibbert, Shrewsbury.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Rioters And Looters.
Someone on Sky News said tonight that the rioters and looters are "acting without fear of prosecution." Couldn't have put it better myself. They know that because of the police numbers being cut back and the country's soft attitude to crime, they will either get away with it or get very lenient sentences. And, of course, the prisons are full. The UK is a fucked up country and it's only going to get worse. Don't believe the empty promises of the politicians.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Appreciate The People Who DO Like You.
Everybody wants to be liked by everyone, but unless you're perfect, that will not happen.
Accept that not everybody likes you, and more importantly, don't let it worry you.
As long as you like yourself, and appreciate the people who DO like you, there is no need to think about those who dislike you.
Accept that not everybody likes you, and more importantly, don't let it worry you.
As long as you like yourself, and appreciate the people who DO like you, there is no need to think about those who dislike you.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Correct Language Terms.
According to new ridiculous Scottish Government Guidelines, it is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual". Their excuse is, "This term is offensive to many people as it is the term that was used in law to make same-sex sexual relationships illegal." It isn't offensive to many, as far as I know. It's just another case of political correctness gone too far.
Apparently, they want the term "gay" to be used instead. "The term "gay" is used to describe someone who is sexually and attracted to someone of the same sex and is a widely understood term. It is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual"." You couldn't make it up. Which idiot has come up with this nonsense?
They also prefer the use of the word "straight" to that of "hetrosexual". "A lot of confusion centres around the use of the word "hetrosexual" being sexually and emotionally attracted to someone of the opposite sex. To help increase the understanding of this term, the word "straight" is used alongside it. This is a colloquial term that is more widely understood." Having "straight" as the term used implies that people who are gay are not straight, which to me, is more offensive. Does the use of the term "straight" mean that "bent" can be used to describe gay people?
In my opinion, there is nothing offensive or wrong using the terms "homosexual" and "hetrosexual". They are very clear in their meaning, and there is no confusion when using these terms. I have never heard of anyone complaining about their use. Are the Scottish Government the only people who think otherwise? In an age when the world is far too politically correct, this is just another guideline which is totally and utterly unnecessary.
Welcome to the United Kingdom, 2011. Just remember to use the correct language terms.
Apparently, they want the term "gay" to be used instead. "The term "gay" is used to describe someone who is sexually and attracted to someone of the same sex and is a widely understood term. It is not acceptable to use the term "homosexual"." You couldn't make it up. Which idiot has come up with this nonsense?
They also prefer the use of the word "straight" to that of "hetrosexual". "A lot of confusion centres around the use of the word "hetrosexual" being sexually and emotionally attracted to someone of the opposite sex. To help increase the understanding of this term, the word "straight" is used alongside it. This is a colloquial term that is more widely understood." Having "straight" as the term used implies that people who are gay are not straight, which to me, is more offensive. Does the use of the term "straight" mean that "bent" can be used to describe gay people?
In my opinion, there is nothing offensive or wrong using the terms "homosexual" and "hetrosexual". They are very clear in their meaning, and there is no confusion when using these terms. I have never heard of anyone complaining about their use. Are the Scottish Government the only people who think otherwise? In an age when the world is far too politically correct, this is just another guideline which is totally and utterly unnecessary.
Welcome to the United Kingdom, 2011. Just remember to use the correct language terms.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Hang The DJs.
I have decided to stop listening to the radio altogether. I don't have much time for new music that is being recorded these days, but I don't mind listening to the oldies. However, disc jockeys get right up my nerves. I can't stand listening to them anymore.
I avoided the DJs who talk to other people in the studio to help them with their show. I tended to stick with the DJs who were strong enough to present a show all by themselves. Those who spoke to the listeners as opposed to chatting to their cronies in the studio. However, I can't bare to listen to any of them anymore.
Some of them have radio robotic voices, programmed like a computer to fill in the spaces between the songs. They talk nonsense the majority of time, and don't tell us what songs are playing when you are curious to know what it is. I've always thought the whole point of a DJ was to tell you what song is playing.
They got rid of the video jockeys on the satellite music channels, so please do the same with the disc jockeys on the radio channels. Play song after song, back to back. Keep the news and weather bulletins. Keep the adverts. But please hang the DJs.
I avoided the DJs who talk to other people in the studio to help them with their show. I tended to stick with the DJs who were strong enough to present a show all by themselves. Those who spoke to the listeners as opposed to chatting to their cronies in the studio. However, I can't bare to listen to any of them anymore.
Some of them have radio robotic voices, programmed like a computer to fill in the spaces between the songs. They talk nonsense the majority of time, and don't tell us what songs are playing when you are curious to know what it is. I've always thought the whole point of a DJ was to tell you what song is playing.
They got rid of the video jockeys on the satellite music channels, so please do the same with the disc jockeys on the radio channels. Play song after song, back to back. Keep the news and weather bulletins. Keep the adverts. But please hang the DJs.
Father's Birthday.
My father would have been 75 years old today. He is very much missed and will always be in my thoughts. Africa by Toto was one of his favourite songs.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
My Blog.
I realise that nobody reads my blog, but I don't care. I don't have this blog so I can find as many people as I can to look at it. It would be bloody sad if I did! I only write about topics and post video clips for the enjoyment of it all. Not for attention or financial gain. Yes, I know, it makes a change.
BBC scheduling.
If there's one thing in life that annoys me, it's the BBC's bad tv scheduling. Although, more a minor irritation than something that has me screaming my head off, to put it in perspective.
The latest example happened when the BBC were broadcasting U2's aforementioned performance at Glastonbury. The programme started at 9.45pm on BBC2, and was to run until 10.30pm. You then had to turn over to BB4 to continue watching U2's performance until 11.05pm. Finally, whan that transmission ended, you had to turn back over to BBC2 and watch the remainder of the performance. All because Newsnight was on at 10.30pm!
Good grief. Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to switch Newsnight over to BBC1, so we could watch U2 uninterrupted? Of course it would have been. Yet, for some awkward reason, the BBC choose to be difficult and have us changing channels twice to watch one programme! Why do they make life difficult for themselves and inconvenient for the viewers?
Last year, I was watching a F1 Grand Prix on Sky Plus because it started very early in the morning, and I didn't want to get up for it. However, because the race was delayed, it was not going to be completed before the programme was supposed to finish. Any other channel would have extended the programme to accomodate the race being delayed, but not the BBC.
When the programme's ending time was approaching, there was a message to turn over to BBC2 to watch the last quarter of the race. Remember, I'm watching this on Sky Plus, and Sky Plus doesn't know to record BBC2 because it wasn't in the tv listings! So there I am, having watched three quarters of the race, only for the idiots at the BBC to terminate the broadcast because they want you to change channels (yes, that one again) to watch the same programme. The problem being I'm not watching it live, and I have no recording of the remainder of the race on BBC2. It's a damn good job I have the internet and was able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer. If I didn't have the internet, I would have been very angry indeed.
This is just two examples of bad scheduling by the BBC. They don't like you watching one programme on one channel when you can be switching back and forth between different channels. Totally unnecessary, and incompetence on the part of the BBC schedulers. Why make life complicated when you can make it easy?
The latest example happened when the BBC were broadcasting U2's aforementioned performance at Glastonbury. The programme started at 9.45pm on BBC2, and was to run until 10.30pm. You then had to turn over to BB4 to continue watching U2's performance until 11.05pm. Finally, whan that transmission ended, you had to turn back over to BBC2 and watch the remainder of the performance. All because Newsnight was on at 10.30pm!
Good grief. Wouldn't the sensible thing have been to switch Newsnight over to BBC1, so we could watch U2 uninterrupted? Of course it would have been. Yet, for some awkward reason, the BBC choose to be difficult and have us changing channels twice to watch one programme! Why do they make life difficult for themselves and inconvenient for the viewers?
Last year, I was watching a F1 Grand Prix on Sky Plus because it started very early in the morning, and I didn't want to get up for it. However, because the race was delayed, it was not going to be completed before the programme was supposed to finish. Any other channel would have extended the programme to accomodate the race being delayed, but not the BBC.
When the programme's ending time was approaching, there was a message to turn over to BBC2 to watch the last quarter of the race. Remember, I'm watching this on Sky Plus, and Sky Plus doesn't know to record BBC2 because it wasn't in the tv listings! So there I am, having watched three quarters of the race, only for the idiots at the BBC to terminate the broadcast because they want you to change channels (yes, that one again) to watch the same programme. The problem being I'm not watching it live, and I have no recording of the remainder of the race on BBC2. It's a damn good job I have the internet and was able to watch it on the BBC iPlayer. If I didn't have the internet, I would have been very angry indeed.
This is just two examples of bad scheduling by the BBC. They don't like you watching one programme on one channel when you can be switching back and forth between different channels. Totally unnecessary, and incompetence on the part of the BBC schedulers. Why make life complicated when you can make it easy?
U2 At Glastonbury.
Having watched U2 last week at Glastonbury on tv, I have to say I was underwhelmed by their performance. Not by The Edge's magnificent guitar playing, Adam's bass playing, or by Larry's drumming. No, underwhelmed by Bono's singing. His voice doesn't appear to be as powerful is it used to be. During With Or Without You was where his voice didn't come near the standard it used to be. He was almost speaking the verses rather than sing them. When it came to the high pitched part before the final play out of the song, he attempted to have the crowd sing it for him at first. Then we he tried to sing it himself, he sadly couldn't reach the high notes. He put his fingers to his throat as if to say, "I can't seem to reach those notes anymore. Oh well."
What a shame that is. All of those years of smoking have finally affected Bono's voice to the point where he can't deliver the same high standard of performance like he used to do. It's very sad and disappointing to see, having witnessed top class vocal and stage performances from the frontman for many years.
Bono didn't help matters by interjecting many songs with snippets of other people's songs. Do it once or twice, yes, but not every second song, which it felt like he was doing. Where The Streets Have No Name was spoiled by him throwing in a snippet of an Andy Wiliams song. It spoiled the performance of the song. He also seemed to look down at a screen with the songs' lyrics on it quite often. Doesn't he know the words by now or is getting older affecting his memory? I thought that was rather strange.
I have been a fan of U2 for 30 years now, before most people had ever heard of them. My liking for them started back in the summer of 1981 when the single Fire was a minor hit. It's a shame they stopped performing that song live around a year after it came out. Fire is a better song than some of the old favourites they still perform today. I have to say U2 have lasted a lot longer than I thought they would. I honestly thought Achtung Baby was going to be their final album, and that was 20 years ago! However, I thought their last album No Line On the Horizon was the worse album of their career. Two or three songs were okay, but on the whole, it was mediocre by U2's standards. Watching the performance of the awful Get On Your Boots at Glastonbury reminded me of that.
All of this indicates to me that now is perhaps a good time for U2 to call it a day. When the mainman's on stage performance shows signs of decline, it would be sad to see U2 carry on not being as great as they used to be. I would hate for U2 to still be around in 10 years time, a shadow of what they used to be. It would be far more sensible to quit while still at (or near) the top of their game. Which is now. One more album and think about it being the farewell one. There's something very sad about seeing someone or something past it's best.
What a shame that is. All of those years of smoking have finally affected Bono's voice to the point where he can't deliver the same high standard of performance like he used to do. It's very sad and disappointing to see, having witnessed top class vocal and stage performances from the frontman for many years.
Bono didn't help matters by interjecting many songs with snippets of other people's songs. Do it once or twice, yes, but not every second song, which it felt like he was doing. Where The Streets Have No Name was spoiled by him throwing in a snippet of an Andy Wiliams song. It spoiled the performance of the song. He also seemed to look down at a screen with the songs' lyrics on it quite often. Doesn't he know the words by now or is getting older affecting his memory? I thought that was rather strange.
I have been a fan of U2 for 30 years now, before most people had ever heard of them. My liking for them started back in the summer of 1981 when the single Fire was a minor hit. It's a shame they stopped performing that song live around a year after it came out. Fire is a better song than some of the old favourites they still perform today. I have to say U2 have lasted a lot longer than I thought they would. I honestly thought Achtung Baby was going to be their final album, and that was 20 years ago! However, I thought their last album No Line On the Horizon was the worse album of their career. Two or three songs were okay, but on the whole, it was mediocre by U2's standards. Watching the performance of the awful Get On Your Boots at Glastonbury reminded me of that.
All of this indicates to me that now is perhaps a good time for U2 to call it a day. When the mainman's on stage performance shows signs of decline, it would be sad to see U2 carry on not being as great as they used to be. I would hate for U2 to still be around in 10 years time, a shadow of what they used to be. It would be far more sensible to quit while still at (or near) the top of their game. Which is now. One more album and think about it being the farewell one. There's something very sad about seeing someone or something past it's best.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Keyboard Warriors.
There appears to be a phenomenon on the internet called "Keyboard Warriors". It's not something new, and in fact, has been building up and up with the rise in popularity of the internet over the past 10 years or so. Like a monster. Who or what are Keyboard Warriors? People who sit at the keyboards of their computers and type aggressive comments and abuse towards people who they hate or disagree with.
Not only aggressive, but obscene, insulting, and provocative words to anybody who comes into their line of fire. You can read their comments on websites such as Twitter, YouTube, and any forum you can find. Someone leaves a comment or opinion about something, and they are shot down in flames by a Keyboard Warrior because it goes against their view of the subject in hand. Cyber bullies is another description that can be used for these unpleasant people.
Why do Keyboard Warriors have a need to be extremely unpleasant when hurling their anger towards their targets? I guess it's a reflection on regular life... many people are unhappy with their lives for various reasons, and have a need to cause as much trouble and disruption to as many people as they possible can. There are those sitting at their computers who are bored and have nothing better to do than pick an argument with someone. They are safe in the knowledge they can say anything inflammatory to anyone they want, without fear of physical reprisal. What brave warriors they are!
I've been the target of a few Keyboard Warriors at Twitter. Comments of mine have been responded with abuse for no reason. One guy wrote that because I had food poisoning, I wasn't an American, and therefore a fag! Who rights something like that? A guy who is utterly frustrated with life and likely to shoot random people in his neighbourhood. Frightening. Another guy (it's always guys, by the way) responded to a derogatory comment I made about Ibiza, and asked if I had ever been to Ibiza, and if not, to shut the fuck up! Why does he care about my opinions? He doesn't know me. Seriously, if he had said that to my face, I would have punched him.
As I wrote earlier, these Keyboard Warriors think they're being tough and strong typing abuse to people, but would they spout the same words to the faces of the people they are abusing? Of course not. I used to get wound up by them, but no more. A simple reply of "I don't care about you or your opinions, so don't tweet me again" is suffice, closely followed by a blockade of their account. Or just cut straight to the block button. In other words, deleting them. Don't let the Keyword Warriors drag you down to their level. Rise above it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)