Category: humour

It’s with a sense of nostalgia that I looked at Paul’s video of the new FeedHenry offices in Waterford. The reason being that I used to be based there in what increasingly seems like a previous life. That was when I shared an office with Brendan Jennings and Sven van der Meer as the leader of the TSSG’s Services & Frameworks group. Those were actually pretty cool times and I’m looking forward to going back and seeing what they’ve done with the place.
While skimming Paul’s blog I also saw a reference to Empire’s list of the 50 best tv shows. In response to Paul’s query about Scully in the X-Files. I saw Ms. Anderson standing a few feet away in London once.. and the TV doesn’t do justice 🙂
Now, the list itself is arse. Seriously where in the top 10 is MASH, one of the most influential TV shows of all time? MSG may be addictive but 2nd best show ever? Yeah, it was good but that good? Then there’s LOST which makes me feel seasick as it’s chaotic sea of plots bob and sway. Every episode I feel they jump a new shark!

Today’s sermon is on auctioneers and the photographs they use to advertise properties on their websites. Is there an official course in taking misleading photographs which distort a small, pokey and drab house crammed onto tiny site into a rambling mansion with a sweeping driveway?
There should be a feature in the Sunday papers. Instead of “Property of the Week” try “Most Disappointing Viewing of the Week”. And it’s more egalitarian than you might think. (Almost) Regardless of your budget, there’s a hugely disappointing viewing experience tailormade just for you. and everyone else unfortunate enough to get excited about it.
As our house hunting continues I’ve learned to look at the houses ourselves initially, just cheekily drive by and have a gawk. It saves the time of visiting something entirely unsuitable. If only this was in any way discernible from the photos in ads. In true High-Fidelity fashion here’s my top 5 gripes with auctioneers photos.

1. The photo makes the property look bigger and more private than it is.
2. Obvious negative factors of the property are missing from the photograph. 2 examples that spring to mind are a tiny site and a busy road a few feet away. The neighbour’s burnt out car is not photographed for some reason 🙂
3. Part of the property or site is run down but it is mysteriously unphotographed.
4. The photos misrepresent the layout of the house.
5. The photos make the decor look fresher and more contemporary than it is.

The amazing thing is that I’ve yet to see a set of auctioneers photographs which understate the attractiveness of a house. Maybe I’m missing the point. I’m starting to believe there must be people out there who fall so much in love with the photos they buy the crappy real(i)ty.

What’s the internet for if it’s not to find your superhero secret identity
Apparently, I am

Spider-Man

Spider-Man 100% Green Lantern 100% Hulk 85% Robin 70% The Flash 70% Wonder Woman 65% Superman 65% Supergirl 55% Batman 55% Iron Man 55% Catwoman 40%

You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

Thanks to Paul Watson for the link and the distraction. The self-delusions are all mine however 🙂

For all of 5 minutes. I’m talking about the Lonely Planet Guides of course and this article in the Irish Times. It appears that a travel writer who contributed over a dozen books to the LPG series never visited some of the places he wrote about, instead relying on plagiarism, hearsay and a thick neck, figuratively anyway. Obviously this is not the same writer who described my “seedy port” hometown of Waterford.
Why am I not comforted that the LPG “had reviewed Kohnstamm’s guidebooks but had not found any inaccuracies in them”?