The People who Started Using Umlauts in Rock Titles

Dear linguistic misfits,

I don't know who you are. I haven't bothered finding out who was first. Perhaps it was Blue Öyster Cult

Or perhaps it was Motörhead

Or perhaps it was some other band altogether - there are certainly a lot of examples to choose from.

There are even new examples.

To be fair, the newer examples are probably mostly in jest, parodying the heavy usage of unnecessary umlauts in the past.

But no matter what the reason, there are still facts that remain. One of those facts is that the gratuitous use of umlauts looks extremely silly.

No matter what the old rock legends say, a couple of extra dots over a letter does not make you look "hardcore" - at least not to people who speak languages where those dots are actually used. To many of us it looks absolutely ridiculous.

People from bands like Motörhead and Blue Öyster Cult have said that the addition of the umlaut does not mean that we should pronounce their names differently than if they were using regular old Os. But to those of use who are used to actually using letters like for instance Ö, it is automatic. Whenever I see an album cover with gratuitous umlauts it's pronounced wrong in my head, which really detracts from the whole visual appeal.

So, to whatever band started this trend, I just have to say that I'm angry at you. Why did you have to go and do a stupid thing like that? I generally enjoy the kind of music that the umlaut-bands play but I don't like their album covers.

Wärm rëgärds and sëäsöns grëëtïngs,

Marcus

The People behind the Conservative Bible Project

Dear ultra right-wing morons,

I recently heard about Conservapedia's “Conservative Bible Project” and I must say that I was a little surprised.

I’m glad that some of you people over at Conservapedia are starting to realize that the Bible actually is a document that you have to interpret – not something you can follow literally all the time – but I didn't think you would admit that.

What doesn't surprise me is your quest to purge some of the bits that are actually good about the Bible – the “liberal bias” as you call it. It doesn't surprise me one bit that you are angry that your precious Bibles says that Jesus talked about things like forgiveness.

In short, your whole project seems immeasurably stupid and narrow-minded, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about. I don’t care much about the Bible and I’m well aware that it has been changed innumerable times over the years already, so once more doesn't seem to matter very much.

What did catch my attention is this little blurb at the Conservapedia main page:

“Liberal hypocrisy anyone? In their condemnation of the Conservative Bible Translation Project, the critics have forgotten their praise for last year's "Green Bible", an eco-friendly edition made from recycled paper, processed soy ink, and the words of nature - not Christ - in green.”

What is hypocritical about that? Even if we disregard the fact that it is probably not the same people who praised the Green Bible who criticize the Conservative Bible, I still don’t see your point.

They changed the emphasis in some Biblical texts to say that we need to take care of the environment. You are changing the words.

You must understand the difference, don’t you? Not all Bibles have the words of Jesus highlighted in the first place and making a bunch of different words highlighted only serves to draw attention to other parts of the book than usual. It’s all supposed to be holy anyway, isn’t it, so isn’t it just good that it encourages people to think about more parts?

But I guess that you people, as usual, just hate the environment so very much that you must take any chance you have to sling some mud at the people who think that we should actually care for the only planet that we can live on.

Well, anyway, good luck with your project. I’m certain you’ll find more parts of the Bible that you don’t like when you start reading it carefully. I certainly did when I tried to read it.

Sincere hypocritical greetings,

Marcus

Eco Nuts

Dear overzealous environmentalists,

I really don’t enjoy writing an angry letter directed at you – I’m supposed to be on your side.

I’ve always cared a lot about the environment, both for the sake of the defenseless animal species that we insist on driving extinct and for our own sake. Since we all live in the environment I’ve always thought that it is just the most basic common sense to avoid destroying it.

But I’ve noticed that this attitude doesn’t always go over so well with people. When I’ve expressed any concern about the environment, there have usually been at least some people reacting negatively to it. I’ve been called a “polar bear worshiper”, “damn hippie tree-hugger”, “green meanie”, etcetera. And this all just because of some rather innocuous things I’ve said.

For instance, I’ve been told things like that if I give some polite suggestion about how someone might save gas. Sure, a suggestion like that might, if expressed without care, be seen as condescending, but is that a reason to get such strong negative reactions?

I’ve usually just said something that will benefit them in the short run (e.g. save money by using less gas or less electricity) and the planet in the long run (help reduce pollution/the depletion of our natural resources etcetera). Not something to get very worked up about – I don’t think it sounds like a nefarious plot from a cult of evil hippie polar bear worshiping meanies. So I never understood their reaction.

                 

But then it dawned on me. It’s because of you. It’s because of the people who take it too far.

For instance, I recently saw an article about an environmentally friendly, solar-powered automatic lawnmower. One of the comments spewed bile about how this is stupid and that we shouldn’t waste resources on anything like that. Instead we should give up our gardens to grow crops there.

People who say things like that are totally disconnected from reality. Instead of taking the small win of people switching from horribly inefficient two-stroke gas powered lawnmowers to electric, solar-powered ones, he wanted a complete revolution of society. Every person growing crops in their garden is not feasible in the modern economy and anyone the least bit at home in the real world would know that.

But some environmentalists get riled up and say stupid crap like that. This leads to people thinking that all the things that people who care about the environment say are totally unfeasible and stupid. So instead of even considering the gentle suggestions that will benefit both them and their fellow man, they discard it as bullshit from some damn tree-hugging hippie.

If you are the kind of environmentalist who wants humanity to make extremely impossible changes overnight, please keep those opinions for yourself in the future. It only makes it harder for those with sensible opinions about how to make things better for all of us to be heard.

Love, flowers and tree-hugs,

Marcus

Valve Corporation

Dear incomprehensible people at Valve,

We always knew that you are strange. You wouldn't be able to release such awesome games if you were totally normal. But as your latest release is drawing nearer I must wonder if you aren't becoming a bit too strange.

When you made the original Half-Life, a large portion of the gaming world fell in love with you. When Half-Life 2 came, you made gaming history with a game that many described as close to perfect. Then you announced that you would release the sequel in the form of episodic content, allowing you to release smaller games more often.

As many have pointed out before me; you have, in fact, not released them very often. When Half-Life 2: Episode Two came out, were rather dismayed that it had taken over a year since Episode One. In a week from now it will be two years since Episode Two was released and we still have no information on if you ever plan on releasing Episode Three.

People have been clamoring for episode three for two years, complaining and whining about the long wait. So what do you decide to do? You pour your resources into creating a sequel for Left 4 Dead, trying to make it ready for release a mere year after the original.

So that's two full Left 4 Dead-games released during the time when we're waiting for one episode. Remind me again, were the episodes supposed to take longer or shorter time to develop than the full games?

I don't even know if you think that this tactic makes any sort of sense from a marketing perspective. Normally I'll forgive a game developer for acting a bit strangely to make some extra money, because if you don't have any money you can't release any games. But in this case I really don't know...

People are still having fun with the original Left 4 Dead. People are still playing it. Hell, some people are still buying it. You could have tried to finish Episode Three and released it while people still have some positive emotions about your company, and then release Left 4 Dead 2 when people start to long for that instead. Or you could have worked on some sort of sequel to the extremely popular Portal. The original was one of the most fantastic games I've ever played and I know that very many fans around the world agree, but it was too short. People want more.

But with at least two games that a lot of people are longing for, you decide instead to work to release a sequel to another game almost unprecedentedly fast.

I think that you'll have to watch out so that you don't suffer from Duke Nukem Forever syndrome. When the development time for Duke Nukem Forever got longer and longer, people started having bigger and bigger expectations of the game, making it harder and harder for 3D Realms to actually release something. It had been in development for so long that a game that was anything less than absolutely perfect would have been totally shot down by every gamer and critic in the world.

Episode Three is nearing the same point. Of course it hasn't been in development for quite as long as Duke Nukem Forever, but it's still been such a long time that our already high expectations have skyrocketed.I hope that you'll release before it is impossible for you to make a good impression with whatever you release.

Love and headcrab hugs,
Marcus

People Who Think That I Should Root for a Sports Team

Dear sports nuts,

I'm well aware of what you think. You seem very much convinced that if I don't enjoy watching sports I'm not a real man, and you think that it is inconceivable that I don't have any preferences when it comes to sports teams.

I'll admit that it's true that I'm not very manly (and that I don't care much about that fact), but I'll also say that I have no idea how you decide what sports team to cheer for.

National teams “representing your country” or teams from the region you were born are one thing, I guess I can understand cheering for them. I think it's rather arbitrary like a team just because you happened to be born where they come from, but sure, I still understand the reasoning.

But most people interested in sports root for at least one team that comes from somewhere else entirely. For instance, a lot of people around here have a favourite Spanish or British soccer team and a favourite NHL hockey team, even though they've often never even been to the cities that those teams have in their names.

In those cases there must be some different standard for judging which team is worthy of your admiration. At first I thought that you might just like the team that is the best at what they do, but this is apparently not so. How many times haven't I heard one of you complain about how “your” team is doing extremely badly this season? Obviously you like the team even if they play badly, so skill isn't what interests you.

Then I thought that it might be that you like individual players. I can understand if you respect and admire an athlete's performance. But then I realized how much often players are sold from one team to another. I've watched sports with some of you when you start talking about a great new player newly acquisitioned from a rival team, i.e. a team that you don't like. So clearly it isn't individual players that are important if they can be enemies when they are in another team but suddenly on “your side” when your team buys them.

So, what is it? It's not the geographic origin of the team. It's not the ability of the team or the players. Then what? Is it the team name or colors? I doubt it, since I've never heard any of you sports nuts wax poetic about the beauty of a team name or any combination of colors.

I guess that you at some point in your childhood just arbitrarily picked a team that you like (or a team that your father or brother liked) and then just stuck with it because you need to have someone to cheer for. Watching a ball pass back and forth over a field for an hour or two isn't all that interesting if you don't have any reason to want it to go one way or another. Is that it?

Well, either way you can count on me not "choosing a team" before I find some tangible, definable reason for rooting for some particular team.

Peace and touchdowns,

Marcus

Winter

Dear winter,

I can feel you approaching fast. The days are getting shorter and colder. The mornings are getting white and frosty. I have to turn on the heat and use my thick duvet. It's obvious that you'll be here soon.

So, what the hell, man? What's the big idea? I thought we had a deal. I thought we were cool (well, of course you are cool, but you know what I mean). I thought we had agreed how this relationship was going to work.

Look, you know that I love you. As a friend. Sure, it's nice hanging out with you every once in a while, but I don't want to feel too crowded, you know? We can still see each other, but does it have to be every year?

I really enjoy hanging out with summer right now. I'm sorry, I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I have to be honest. I know that we used to have a great time when I was a little boy who loved to play in your snow, but over the years we've grown apart.

I'm sorry. It's not you, it's me. I've changed over the years and our relationship just doesn't work anymore. So please, I don't want you showing up here every year, knocking on my door, enveloping me in your cold every time I leave my apartment. I don't want to accuse you of stalking, but soon I don't know if I have any choice…

Please stop embarrassing yourself and accept that I have moved on. You need to move on too.

Warm Sorry, cold regards,
Marcus

Idiots Who Complain about Cellphones on Trains and Buses

Dear annoying whiners,

You are usually the kind of people who write angry letters to the editor to your local newspaper, complaining about how the young people of today are destroying society with their wicked, wicked ways. You're the kind of people who complain endlessly about how wrong everything that other people do is.

You say that people listen to the wrong music, walk in the wrong way, wear the wrong kind of clothes, etcetera – and this is apparently always a complete catastrophe. You are always so extremely incensed by the fact that people, especially people younger than you, dare to have a culture that is different than yours.

God you are annoying. And you've always been annoying when you write the endless tirade of letters complaining how “some young woman talked on a cellphone on the bus today! It was so annoying! Aren't young people taught any manners these days!?”

I never understood the complaint. People don't complain when two people sitting next to each other talk to each other, so I always wondered why you are complaining when one person on the bus talks to someone that is somewhere else. I never understood why this is less well-mannered than having a face-to-face conversation there – I wondered if it might be because you can't eavesdrop on the entire conversation. I mean, it must be annoying trying to live vicariously through others when you can only listen to one side of the conversation.

Here's the problem though: I've started to actually understand your annoyance with the prevalence of cellphones on public transportation. And this really annoys me, because I really hate agreeing with you people.

But it's true. The more I'm subjected to someone close by talking on a cellphone when we're trapped in an enclosed space (e.g. a bus) together, the more I realize that people are totally incapable of speaking normally on a cellphone. They are always talking incredibly loudly, almost shouting into the phone, and that can actually be pretty aggravating to listen to for any extended period of time.

And over the last few years it has just gotten worse and worse. Calling people on cellphones just gets cheaper, with many people having plans that let them talk an unlimited amount of time. More and more buses have power outlets by the seats these days too, giving people the opportunity to charge their phone during the trip and potentially talking the entire time – even during long trips.

So, yes, I agree with exasperation – at least in part – and I think that is the worst thing of all. I really don't want to agree with you.

Luke-warm regards,
Marcus