— Spare Me — from These Things

Everyone has a collection of pet peeves, whether or not it actually has been itemized on paper.  Some of the more common peeves are dangerous drivers, egotists, undisciplined kids, proselytizers, people who say "irregardless", and those who substitute, "No problem" for a more courteous, "You're welcome".  Many such lists have been published online, and I've no desire to duplicate their content.  Rather, I am hoping to offer some new material as well as a modicum of food for thought.

This page will be updated as the mood dictates.  Most newer topics will be listed near the top.

In fact, basing a life-critical medical decision upon anything other than the pertinent medical considerations is incomprehensibly stupid.

Dozens of such YouTube offerings portray everything from poor parking to head-on collisions.  A few are legitimately compiled from existing footage of random incidents, but I'm not talking about those.  There are a number of jerkoffs who head out with their dashcams intent upon manufacturing their own spectacular footage.  They actually harass and intimidate drivers so as to invite problems and confrontations.  The inevitable result is a spate of accidents, injuries, and property damage that would not otherwise have occurred.

Although any country might be featured, most of these videos are produced in Russia, which does seem to have a relatively poor traffic-control setup, a lot of inclement weather, and a plethora of insanely bad drivers; in fact, the traffic fatality rate there is double that of the United States.  Existing traffic conditions, however, certainly are not a valid reason for compounding the problem with incompetent and abusive driving tactics just for the sake of another meaningless video.

Being significantly overweight does not make one a bad person, but it does virtually guarantee that one is an unhealthy person; and the fact that most family doctors are incompetent to the task of addressing the life-threatening health factors related to obesity is no excuse for being proud of such a condition.  Moreover, for the record, extra fat does not look good on anyone; it merely exhibits an ignorance of sensible eating habits.

A speed can be calculated, changed, excessive, scary, and more; but by definition, it cannot be "enforced".  That's nonsensical.  The concept of enforcement applies to a regulation or a law.  It is the legally established speed limit that purportedly is being enforced, and that is how the sign should read.  An alternative such as, "Speed Monitored by Aircraft" would at least make sense.

Most such warnings are bogus in any case, however, because most county agencies have better things to do with their budgets these days than to send up helicopters just to monitor traffic on rural roads.

That phrase was funny once when it was coined by Yogi Berra, who was renowned for his hilariously nonsensical exclamations.  For everyone else, however, either the speaker is ignorant of the patent redundancy, or he enjoys boring his listeners with tired clichés.  Either way, it isn't funny anymore; it's merely irritating.

This is yet another example of the unfortunate tendency of so many people to avoid saying what they mean.  "I'm not sure I understand" is the functional equivalent of, "I don't understand".  Why can't the person simply say that?  Apparently it would be too honest and direct.

Does that blatant falsehood really work?  Are there viewers who really are so stupid that they would believe that a company who has spent big bucks on a television advertisement actually wants to sell only ten items each time the promotion is aired?  If the advertised discount were not honored for all callers, the company probably would not remain in business very long.

Society is stuck with people, particulaly teeny-boppers, who think that gum-chewing is cool.  It's a shame, however, that nobody ever points out to them that it is the most heinously unattractive thing that they can do with their faces; and that doesn't even address the issue of the hideous odor when they open their mouths.

It's a good thing that I am not a teenager anymore, for it would be uncomfortable to have to ask a date to hop out of the car and gargle some mouthwash before the smooching could commence.

You probably have heard it at the fast-food counter many times — someone ordering a diet soda based upon the ludicrous pretense of offsetting the fattening effects of the rest of their meal.  Even more ironic is the fact that the artificially sweetened drinks actually are more unhealthful than the sugary ones.  Go figure.

This phenomenon is prevalent on hiking trails and city parks.  The dog's owners, albeit possibly legally bound to scoop up their pets' droppings, sometimes are too bloody pretentious and lazy to handle their own business properly.

This exemplifies the Einstein Syndrome — that is, the insanity of hoping that repetitive actions might somehow produce different results.

The illogic of this scenario is self-evident (but then, all religion is illogical).  What about the other team?  Are those players now supposed to kneel down and thank their god for helping them to lose the game?  Those guys might also have prayed for assistance, and a lesson in humility was not what they had in mind.  Do you see the paradox?

Even if there is a God, he did not win the game for a particular player.  Surely, he is not sitting up on his cloud micro-managing everyone's lives.  More likely, he would be watching the wheels turn as they may; for at least that might provide some interest.

Wait a minute, though.  The deity that we are expected to acknowledge already knows the outcome of every future event — at least according to the nuns at Catechism, and that's another paradox.  Moreover, it is a case for concluding that such an all-knowing entity does not actually exist at all; for if he did, he surely would have died of boredom by now.

"Your computer needs repair", the man advises.  How did he know that?  Has the caller been monitoring my every keystroke?  Does his company have the countless millions of employees that would be required in order to monitor everyone, even if they could?

Despite the obvious lies and illegality of the call, there are recipients that are so dumb that they would buy into such a ploy.  Others, mostly elderly folk, are intimidated into sending payment on some bogus pretext.  Billions of dollars are being stolen in this manner.

Some targets find it fun to "string along" such callers for a while, pretending to be concerned, then enjoy the spate of cursing when the criminal finally figures out that it is he who has been duped.  Unfortunately, such a game would cause a waste of one's own time as well.

I personally delight in watching videos of computer-savvy would-be victims turning the tables and trashing the criminal's own computer equipment.  Somethimes, there is justice in the world.

The original idea of a handshake was to open one's hand, thereby showing another person that one was not holding a concealed weapon such as a knife.  Nowadays, however, some use a handshake as some sort of pissing contest.  Who will let go first?  Who can squeeze the hardest?  It's macho bullshit.

Equally as bad are certain gay men who offer a totally limp hand, not because they have no muscles, but as a sexual advertisement.  Sorry, fella, but I didn't ask; and I've just lost interest in knowing you because of your unwelcome action.

The world arguably would be better off without the archaic formality of handshaking anyway, because it no longer necessarily represents an offer of sincerity.  An honest smile and appropriate comment are sufficient to get the job done.

Surely you have seen this one a thousand times — a person ahead of you in the checkout line who stares blankly as the items are rung up, then suddenly 'realizes' that it will be necessary to pay.  Only then does she begin hunting for a purse and start fishing around for the requisite cash or credit card.

I call this the Prius Syndrome, which manifests itself in many forms.  When at a stop, the Prius's engine is effectively 'off', because there is no requirement that a battery-powered motor remain in motion; rather, it waits for a signal from the driver to start up again.  In the grocery store, the signal for the customer to wake up and reach for her money apparently can be triggered only by the final bell on the cash register.

For many decades, foodstuffs have been packaged such that containers cannot be opened without that fact being detectable.  This is good.  Some vendors, however, seem to think that the idea is not to prevent tampering, but to prevent any access to the contents at all!

One of the worst offenders I have encountered is Welch's line of fruit juices.  Some of those bottles cannot be opened except with the aid of the biggest pair of pliers in my toolbox; and that's a really stupid design.  Perhaps it is just as well that fruit juices are particularly unhealthful; in any case, I'll not be purchasing any more such items until the factories' product-designers get their priorities in order.  Using less plastic on the lids' locks would save them some money as well.

Excepting when you were drunk yourself, have you ever done anything more utterly enervating and time-wasteful than trying to converse with an inebriated person?  I surely have not.  About the only thing more counter-productive than that is:

I tried that once, but never again.  Not fun.  I want to make love with a coherent person, not a bottle.

I truly don't understand the modern tactic of raising the sound-system's decibel-level so high that people literally cannot hear themselves think, let alone talk.  Everyone would be just as happy if the music were at half the volume, so why do they put up with this lunacy that actually damages their ears to boot?  It's just as well that bar-hopping bores me to tears anyway.  Unfortunately, some eating establishments now are doing much the same thing, which has prompted more than one personal request for a restaurant manager to make an adjustment.

Chauvinism and its attendant behavior ideally would be things of the past.  The concept that women are frail and inferior objects is idiotic, and the practice of treating them as such is reprehensible.  But does that mean that I won't open a door for someone?  Of course not.

As would any polite person, I certainly will hold any door for a group, or to prevent it from slamming in a person's face, or to accommodate someone with a handicap or bags of groceries in both arms; but in every case, the person's gender is irrelevant.  Any woman who 'cannot' open her own doors under normal circumstances insults everyone involved; unfortunately, there are such people.

The corollary to this is equally moronic:

You are holding a door for a mixed group; but one of the men stands back and waves you — the holder of the door — ahead, to the mechanical detriment of all.  Even if you wait for him to do the normal thing, he might stand there, steadfastly refusing to accept your assistance.

Not all men act so idiotically, of course; but I surely wouldn't want to see inside the heads of those who do.  It's more macho bullshit.

Some twenty years ago, I purchased some nice flex jeans from Sears.  When informed that the product had been discontinued, I bought up every pair I could get my hands on — about two dozen of them.  Now I am on my last pair, and I cannot find anything comparable in any store.  Walmart had an acceptable style for a while, yet it also has been discontinued.

My favorite hiking hat is made of thin material that folds up easily into a front pocket.  This time, I was able to scrounge only three of them after learning that REI has discontinued the item; and similarly, I cannot find a suitable replacement.  What now?

The craziest twist in this confusing phenomenon is at the Ben & Jerry's ice cream factory in Vermont.  Flying in the big visitors' hall are banners of several beloved products, including the discontinued Wavy Gravy.  My all-time favorite flavor is no longer available, but why not?  If it was such a great product, then why in hell isn't it on the grocery-store shelves?  I don't get it.

And whatever happened to Hires, the best root beer there ever was?

That self-defeating mantra is a heinously unpatriotic message.  Would the person spouting such drivel also abandon his home if a water pipe were to spring a leak?  Someone more intelligent would recognize that there are big problems facing our nation, and that acknowledging them and making the necessary adjustments would be a good thing.  A more sensible directive might read, "Love it and fix it".

According to my dictionary, a Christian is someone who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ and purportedly attempts to live by them.  Jesus's message is quite clear: violence is not the answer; yet there are millions of quasi-religious types out there who either commit violent acts themselves or countenance them in some form.

Well, I'm sorry, but those people have no right to call themselves Christians, because by definition they are not; indeed, they insult Christ in so doing.  They should come up with another name for their particular mind-set, because the designation "Christian" rightly applies only to peace-loving folk.

Whenever one utters that exclamation in a discussion, it means that the person has just lost an argument.  Rather than acknowledge the fact, however, by saying something sensible such as, "Oh, yeah, you're right", or perhaps, "Hmm.  I learned something here", the person will attempt to extricate herself from the conversation by way of the meaningless expletive.  This is just another example of the widespread unwillingness to be honest with self or to give credit where it's due.

Am I the only one who hates the look (and feel!) of silicone-enhanced breasts?  Elective surgery of any kind is foolish from a health standpoint, of course; but this phenomenon takes the cake.  I am saddened by the fact that several woman friends have succumbed to the ludicrous practice, frequently for no better reason than that some jerk of a husband asked them to do it; and they have gone down in my esteem because of it.  Granted, their choices of mates could have been better as well.

Naturally, many movie actresses have done it, including Demi Moore, an otherwise neat person.  She admittedly felt the need to enlarge herself in order to play the lead role in Striptease,  but the results clearly are misshapen and behave unnaturally.  Demi's body was much prettier in earlier movies such as About Last Night.

Barring the very rare medical exception, no woman ever has become more attractive by adding synthetic lumps to her body.

This is analogous to gum-chewing, in that someone needs to tell certain women that the more eye shadow they slap on, the less attractive they become; that maxim applies to an excess of lipstick as well.  Real men don't want women to look like whores or vampires.

Hypothetically, if I were compelled to choose at random from a group of woman strangers, I would select the one with minimal makeup and sensible shoes; for that would maximize my chances of compatibility with the person.

There is a documented case of a woman who never was allowed to drive a car, because she refused to submit her birth certificate to the Department of Motor Vehicles.  This extreme case of misguided vanity cost her dearly.

More realistically, younger women like to overstate their ages, while older ones tend to understate them; it's all so pointless.  Age is an accident of birth; what it is, it is.  Perhaps the worst part of all, though, is the incessant copouts about it, which ceased to be funny ages ago.

How many times have you passed an antique store advertising "Collectables"?  I'll not enter such an establishment; similary, I will not stop at a farm offering "Egg's for sale".

Recently, I received a letter from a bank offering to help me pay off the principle balance of my home mortgage.  Even if I did owe money, I would not patronize that outfit.

Does this suggest something of an attitude on my part?  I can see how it might, yet I merely am recognizing these clues as indicators of a lack of quality in the company.  Although bad spelling is rampant in modern society, there is a limit.  When a firm cannot even properly spell keywords germain to its own primary functions, that's a signal to take my business elsewhere.

I have mentioned this one on my Popular Misconceptions  page.  Anyone complaining about being in a higher tax-bracket demonstrates an utter ignorance of the way that taxes are levied in this country.  In fact, the more money you make, the more you keep irrespective of your actual income.

Financially speaking, it causes one to wonder how those people ever became affluent in the first place.

One still hears this term used in radio and television ads (although not so much as before).  The confusion most likely stems from one of the original computer operating systems, CP/M, which used the backslash ("\") in its file-management protocols.  To maintain backward compatibility, Microsoft subsequently retained that format for its own products, MS-DOS and Windows.

That protocol remains in effect today, but only regarding physical storage media on a Microsoft system.  Apple's OS and older systems such as UNIX use a slash ("/") in their file-naming setups, so jumping from one to another of those systems might understandably cause some confusion.  That, however, has nothing to do with the actual naming of the two characters.

We use the terms "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise" routinely; yet for some reason, no one considers saying, "forward-clockwise".  Why not?  Because it would be redundant; everyone knows which rotation is meant by "clockwise".  Similarly, the character "/" has been named a slash since the day it was invented.  No ambiguity exists, and no confusion is warranted.

In fact, usage of the term "forward-slash" when referencing an Internet address actually is triply redundant.  Backslashes do not exist in Internet naming protocols; and even if you were to type one in that context, your browser's default setup is to correct it to a valid slash automatically.  At least it knows the difference.

Actually, it can be inconsiderate as all getout.  I once watched a woman at a trailhead in Utah's Zion Park, trying to explain why she had arrived some forty-five minutes late.  She was smiling and acting as if her actions were perfectly normal activity; yet I trust that the other hikers felt differently.  Admittedly, this wasn't so much a case of being late just for the effect, as it was deemed acceptable behavior to inconvenience half a dozen others for no good reason.

Many highway vehicles require a lot of power, of course, such as delivery trucks and buses, emergency vehicles, RVs, race cars, and possibly pickups that actually are used to haul stuff.  Anyone planning to tow a boat or a trailer on a regular basis can benefit from a more powerful engine.  Off-roaders on technical routes need extra horsepower as well.  I am referring, however, to the vast majority of drivers, who have a passenger car or perhaps an SUV.  Such people do not need a big engine, despite rationalizations to the contrary.

"But I live in the mountains!" someone might whine.  So what?  Heaven forbid that the car's transmission actually might be called upon to do the job for which it was designed, by employing a lower gear at times.  Also, virtually every car sold is capable of freeway speeds and has adequate passing capability.  Most weekend back-road aficionados cannot make a good case, either.  In my own quest to access remote trailheads, I have been on roads rough enough to destroy mufflers and catalytic converters; yet never have I been in a situation of being underpowered, even with the smallest engines offered for my Outbacks.

No, people are opting for the costlier and less eco-friendly engines mostly because it's the macho thing to do.  Some men apparently need a penis-substitute, while others don't even have that excuse.  Either way, any driver who claims to "need" the bigger engine for normal highway usage is full of shit.

Many selfie-related fatalities are deemed "accidental" in that the photographer was doing something careless but not perceived as foolhardy, such as failing to observe the killer ocean wave approaching, or not realizing that a selfie stick makes a good lightning rod.  The people I am talking about, however, are the supporters of the utter morons who do something knowingly dangerous just for the sake of a few Facebook "likes".

Among the manifold examples detailed online is a recent YouTube video that shows a dude performing some spectacular acrobatics atop a tall building.  While hanging from the roof, a hand slipped and the man plunged to his death.  His reward would have been a bit of cash, plus some additional online notoriety that doubtless was more important to him than the money.

Immediately, there was an outpouring of sympathy from the guy's social-media followers; yet the only accolade actually earned was a Darwin Award, for which the guy's family surely is not pleased.

Another web page shows the scene of a traffic accident, after which many bystanders took pictures of themselves together with the three men who lay bloody and dying on the pavement, while no one offered any aid.

Yes, spare me from the sick social-media types who clearly regard human life as less important than some approval from other sickos who actually are complete strangers and will remain so.

Finally: