Things that are pissing me off...

[grayhawkfh]

(and this is by no means an exhaustive list - just what's cranking me now)

Jiffy Lube Radio Ad: Specifically, the one that goes something like this:

(Car owner) I need to have my scheduled maintenance

(Dealership) OK, I can get you in next week

(Car owner) Next week? I thought this was "scheduled" maintenance?

(Dealership) Yeah

(Car owner) Why do I need an appointment for my scheduled maintenance

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHH!

I heard this on the radio on the way home last night and went from calm to furious raging in about 0.000000343 seconds. I am honestly surprissed that I could speak when I got home last night.

And the reason this pisses me off so much is that it combines some of my favorite things to rant about: Douchebags from Entitlement Acres & deliberate misinterpretation of the English language and the indirect affirmation that it is somehow ok for people to act this way!

Look, I have nothing against Jiffy Lube, ok? I use them on a regular basis. They provide a service for me that I used to do for myself but now don't really have the time for.

But this commercial! ARGH! Look, fuckheads, we're all fucking adults, ok? Scheduled maintenance is now and always has been maintenance done according to a schedule. People need to stop intentionally misinterpreting things because they don't like the correct interpretation. All it does is cause people to waste money on lawsuits, increase the number of lawyers, and make you look like one of the biggest dipshit douchebags to ever walk the goddamn planet! Stop it! STOP IT NOW!

Comopunding this asininity is the fact that they are tacitly approving this sort of tactic with their damn commercial! Yes, I know damn well that this is not the only place where people will get this sort of idea from, but for the love of Great Cthulhu's scaly asscheeks, neither do you have to add to it!

And speaking of douchebags, we come now to the second part of today's rant: TechCrunch and it's fuckwad-in-chief, Mike Arrington, who is apparently trying to dethrone Rob Enderle as the biggest fucking load of cum that ran down his mother's ass and stained the mattress on the internet.

So, apparently, some dickweed with far too much time on his hands managed to hack into a Google Docs account that Twitter uses and copied a whole shitload of documents, ranging from executive meeting notes, partner agreements and financial projections to the meal preferences, calendars and phone logs of various Twitter employees and sent them to TechCrunch.

(N.B.: I don't wanna hear a single goddamn word about "hacker" vs. "cracker". NOT. ONE. That semantic battle was lost years ago - give it up. Seriously.)

Now, where was I. Oh yeah, crown prince douchebag Arrington. So, these fuckers, now in possession of confidential & potentially sensitive corporate documents decide to look at them - and then decide to publish them!

Now, if there was something in there that somehow showed some sort of criminal conspiracy or ethical wrongdoing, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with that. But, so far as I'm seeing, there's nothing of that. Just showing how they run the company. Which, unless you own or work for them, is NONE of our GODDAMN business!!! NONE AT ALL! And in fact, publishing these documents could actively HARM the business.

But wait, there's still more delectable, creamy layers of douchebaggery here! Then, after being chided by hundreds for not acting in a responsible or ethical manner, Mike "I will lick diseased bungholes for site hits" Arrington decides to defend the decision to print them, and publish it under the banner "Ethics 101".

GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

I don't know what the legality of the documents they received are. Nor do I give a fuck - I'm not a lawyer. What I can't understand is how one can twist shit so badly to think that information on the inner workings of a company gained from confidential & potentially sensitive corporate documents needs to be shown publically! And then to defend it with "Well, if we didn't someone else was going to" and "Others have done it before" is just further proof that he is hopelessly lost in some horrifying fantasy that he is the living reincarnation of William Randolph Hearst on the intarwebs!

By the flaming nutsack of Cthugha! As said earlier and better by John C. Welsh, just because someone kicks a puppy doesn't make it morally or ethically right for you to stab a baby!

And I love the line in the article where they publish some of the documents that they did this with the permission of Twitter. Yeah, here's how that conversation probably went:

Arrington: Hey Twitter, we've got copies of your internal documents. We're going to publish them, one way or another. Want to work with us?

Twitter: What choice do we have?

Hey, Arrington. If you could possibly stop fellating your colon and get you head out of your diseased ass for a moment, I have a goddamn news flash for you: holding a loaded fucking gun to the head of someone and asking them to say "yes" isn't getting permission. It's COERCION! I'm quite sure that given the option, they want NONE of their documents published, which would be the reason for the terms "Internal" & "confidential"!

Comments

[evilpassion8.livejournal.com]

May I vent to you? this comes under the same general topic matter, I assure you. I have been writing for an online company that requires you to use your legal name. Okay, cool, I used my legal name. This week they CHANGED my "legal name" to my email name. Then when I said, that's not my name, change it back, you said to use my legal name -- their response was "prove it". To put it in perspective, its as if you suddenly found a company listing your legal name as Grayhawkfh and showing your real picture....which totally defeats the concept of any kind of email anonymity (in my case, for safety reasons). They flat out would not change it back, having decided that my email address must be my legal name. This means they edited their site to put all of my written materials copyrighted in a non-real name. OH I AM PEEVED. Their response to me was "our policy is that you must use your legal name so if you don't want to use your legal name, you are dismissed." Yes, they dismissed me for not using a legal name that was not my legal name.

arggh.

[jacylrin.livejournal.com]

That is insane. This is one of those cases where a lawyer may actually be called for.

[jacylrin.livejournal.com]

for the love of Great Cthulhu's scaly asscheeks

You're so eloquent when you're pissed *chuckle*

I do agree with you on all counts, though. There are SO many people in desperate need of rectal craniectomies, it's overwhelming.