Why Do Some People Insisit on Existence?

Why? Why do some people feel they have the right to exist. Some people just don't deseve that right: Insurance Agents, Lawyers, Conmen (sorry, they are all the same aren't they?...ohhh, snap!)
And then the anonymous person who decided it might be productive to put an article on Wikipedia entitled
"List of Unrefined Sweeteners"
Many people will disagree when i say an article such as this only is of importance to a very small minority of people. Nobody else cares. I don't care. My left thumb doesn't care. i'm sure, were he around, Jesus wouldn't care, though i'm sure he would pretend to care to keep up his facade of, "caring guy with lovable beard".
The only reason I found it was because I though it might be cool to click "Random Article as many times as i could in he space of thirty seconds. But even sadder than that was that the guy or girl who wrote the article listed 21 references. That is 21 seperate articles relating to unrefined sweeteners.

God, why is the world so?

Stupid Headlines & Stupider Questions

People like me find themselves drawn into a shady web of intrigue and confusion when editors use headlines such as:
"Della Bosca Wrote Iguanas Apology".
Now, there are so many different interpretations of this one little headline. So many ways it could be mistook. So why is it that people give me an odd look when I ask:
"What did the Iguana do?"
So until we get a headline that is straight to the point such as:
"Della Bosca complains, then resolves issue by writing an apology to himself"
I think I am well within my rights to ask a stupid question in response to a stupid headline.

Until Next Time,
Mister. B. Gone

Things That Annoy Me # 221 ---The misuse of chimpanzees--

Chimpanzees have had a hard couple of years. Don't get me wrong, I ain't no hippiefied animal rights activist or anything of that sort, i just think chimpanzees have hard a hard rap.

What brought about this opinion?

Well, recently whilst clicking "random article" on wikipedia I stumbled across a disturbing page called "Motorcross Kids". It wasn't that bad until i noticed that one of the kids, the hairy, chimpish one, was indeed a hairy chimp.

See for yourself:

Blatant misuse of Chimpanzee.

The kid on the left is thinking something along the lines of "Wow! A chimpanzee."

The Chimp is thinking something like "Look! I have teeth."

And the chick on the right is seriously considering firing her agent. Look at that death stare its like "Johnny, when i finish this movie i'm gonna dropkick you in the larynx."

And that is just one blatant misuse of chimpanzees.

There are more but i cant be buggered to list all them. Just accept the fact that chimpanzees are being abused on set and go and picket somebody.

Take that corporate America

Whilst traversing the den of iniquity we call the internet I stumbled upon an intersting article by Maddox, a internet satirist (http://maddox.xmission.com/). Avoid this site if you are offended easily, in fact, its probably best if you just avoid this site altogether.

This article related to how much internet advertising doesn't work. Becasue copyright is fun I figured I should post his website up to give him credit.

Anyhow, below are the statistics:

Money spent on advertising courtesy of Adage.com

Internet traffic rankings courtesy of Alexa.com

--Note, the lower the ranking, the better the website--

• "KFC" spent $224, 515, 000 on advertising and ranked 33266 on the web


• "Wendy's Old Fasioned Hamburgers" spent $270,965,000 and was ranked 21984


• "Burger King" spent $336,271,000 with a ranking of 20483


• "Subway" Spent $218,685,000 and was 13937


• "Coca Cola" spent $154,360,000 and was ranked 12388


• "Pepsi" spent $170,115,000 and was ranked 9297


• "McDonalds" spent a whopping $548,250,000 on advertising and got an overall ranking of 6319


• And (drumroll please) Maddox and his "Best Page In The Universe" spent a grand total of Zero Dollars on advertising and was ranked 5892.

So my question is this, what are the big corporations doing wrong? How can it be that one abusive satirist can have more traffic than a website which spends over Five Hundred Million Dollars on advertising.

And more to the point, how can people get away with spending such obscene amounts of money trying to sell a slimy, greasy hamburger when there are still countries in the world with life expectancies not much higher than 38.

Don't fear though, every now and then one of these companies will do a "Fundraiser" to show how much they care about the world. However, even these fundraisers are sales gimmicks. If you look close enough you will see that in order to get the money (normally only a few cents from any purchase) to the charity, you have to buy a hamburger, or fries.

All the below statistics are from the McDonalds Websites. I thought it might be fun to screw them with their own stats.

So lets do the maths, last "Fundraiser" McDonalds did they pledged one dollar from every big mac sold. Now, a Big Mac costs $3.95, and assuming you buy fries and a coke which will take the value up to $5.50. So pledging one dollar from $5.50 gives you $4.50, now McDonalds serves about 47 million customers worldwide each day, and most of their promos are world wide any way, now the Big Mac would sell about 13 million units each day meaning that they will still draw in $58,500,000 dollars each day of the promo, and only give away, $13,000,000. Better than nothing I suppose. The promo ran for three weeks, during which time McDonalds saw an increase in the amount of Big Macs sold, ( though interestingly they never mention exactly what the increase was simply citing "...More than usual...").

And even their good samaritanship with the Ronald McDonald House Charity is a ploy to sell you more McDonalds. Sure they pledge a few million every now and then but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a blatant promotional tool. The very name of it, Ronald McDonald gives it away. Not only do they use their mascot, they also use their name.

Hows this for a new promotional campaign:

Till my next rant, ta ta.