Thursday, September 08, 2005

Our Revels now are ended

I've just polished off a small packet of Revels. Was surprised to find a raisin Revel amongst the usual varieties. In all my years of eating Revels I've never before had a raisin one. I wasn't even aware that raisins were part of the Revel family. It surely must be a new addition or a mistake?

I am now examining the empty packet closely and see that, yes indeedy, the raisin is now an official Revel. It seems that the old peanut Revel has been removed and the raisin has replaced it. I suspect that's because of all the fussing that's done nowadays about nut allergies.

Now, you know I'm not one to ever complain unnecessarily, but really, this is a bloody diabolical liberty. They should've left the original line-up of Revels. OK, I'd have accepted raisin as an additional Revel, but not when it comes in as a substitute for one of the key players in the Revel team. If people have nut allergies, they could simply avoid Revels altogether and buy Maltesers instead. It's not like anyone forces them to eat Revels and thus put themselves at risk, is it? Nut allergy sufferers have plenty other sweets to choose from, so they could've easily left the Revels for those of us who like the traditional range, and want to continue eating peanut Revels with impunity. Why penalise the rest of us? First it's folk deciding to ban smoking in all pubs, now it's folk interfering with our classic chocolate treats. Bring back the nuts, I say.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Hell is other people

Well, it's been a while. Lots of dramatic things have happened in the last 4 weeks, some of which were actually quite pleasant, and the rest were the usual wretchedness. I have no intention of inflicting any of these incidents upon you, because if I mentioned the good, celebratory things and left out the crap stuff, it would create a rosy-tinted glow - a perception somewhat skewed. And I basically can't be arsed to blog about all the nasty bits, because (a) I have enough to contend with by living with it without having to write about it, and (b) if you're even close to being sane, you wouldn't be remotely interested, and (c) frankly, it's none of your bloody business.

My namesake hurricane has been in the news of course, and though it's transpired to be much more appalling than I first anticipated, I'm still churlish enough to enthusiastically grab with both hands the opportunity to have another go at the bloody group-huggers I had a rant about a few weeks back. Sweet Jesus, I need to stop looking at that message-board, I really do. One of the members is from New Orleans, and evacuated in advance of Katrina's arrival. Cue a swarm of the group-huggers falling over themselves to offer support. "If there is anything at all I can do to help let me know." writes one* from her computer keyboard somewhere in an English Shire, where 'urricanes 'ardly hever 'appen. What's she going to do, I ask myself? Hop on a plane with some bottles of Evian? Then N.O. man reports he has received a wealth of PMs, and wishes to thank all concerned. On pops another hugger - this time, the board's resident attention-seeker - to publicise the depth of her 'caring': "I know I sent you a PM too, but again hope you are safe". What's matters here, it seems, is to ensure that one is seen by everyone else on the board as 'a caring individual' and a 'nice person'. The 'support' is more fake than Jordan's tits. Real caring doesn't announce itself with a fanfare on a public forum. I'm sure that the young N.O. fellow did receive a modicum of comfort from the messages he received, but why do some folk feel the need to come on a board and then announce to everyone that they were one of the lovely caring ones who sent a 'message of support'? It's a self-serving egotistical gesture that devalues genuine compassion by emptying it of any meaning.

My distaste at the 'mourning sickness' phenomenon links with my discomfiture with one aspect of the message-board 'culture'. People are sadly mistaken if they think that these message-boards are proper 'communities', but a significant proportion of board-ers seem to venerate them as such. These people are not your friends. Really, they're not. They are strangers scattered across the globe who happen to share a couple of common interests or hobbies and like to have conversations about them. When I think about the other people on the board on which I post, I can count on the fingers of one hand those I'd actually be vaguely interested in knowing in real life. However, there is a significant number of members I'd happily bolt across a busy street in front of an oncoming fleet of lorries to avoid. In the virtual world, as in the real one, I'm gey picky.

Och, I just don't like people very much, I know. I listen to most folk and am frankly completely repelled. I could never be arsed with these work nights out things, for example (christ, you see enough of the banal bitches through the day, without having to suffer their inane chatter all evening as well), so therefore I shrink in horror at the occasional proposals on the messageboard about us all meeting up somewhere. Bleeeeccccch. Why would anyone want to? So they can either (a) pretend they're 'proper' friends and all so popular within this clique, or (b) so they can indulge in the verbal pissing contests, back-biting and bitching that is generally the other side of board interactions. Gives me the bloody shivers, I'm telling you. If it turns out that I'm wrong about the God stuff, and I end up damned for all eternity, it'll most likely be in some bloody party where everyone's going around being insincerely hail-fellow-well-met with a bunch of odious strangers who are trying desperately to claim bonds of friendship with each other. And you can bet the buggers'll be group-hugging and air-kissing with abandon. Sartre was so right.

*To be fair, this lady, sans crises or cries for help from other members, is usually sparky and humorous, and one of my favourite posters on the board. Sadly, she seems highly susceptible to empathising with natural disasters and 'poor me' posts, to my chagrin. (I've also unfairly presented her by quoting her in viciously truncated form, as she promptly footnoted her remark with an admission that it must sound really daft. But we all know I'm a grossly unfair person when riled up about something, and I'm enjoying playing 'tabloid editor'.) Anyway, I only chose her as an example so I could include the My Fair Lady 'urricanes joke. OK? How sad am I?