Monster

Noun: a sample, a specimen

Some words in the English language are simply depressing. Besides a very well-known exception "sample" is often one of these. It denotes a small portion, just enough of something to be used for some other means it isn't intended for.

In Dutch, and I can't for the life of me imagine why, the word for sample is "monster". This is especially odd since "monster" is also "monster". I sometimes work in lunch kitchens (As I keep telling myself, it is only to pay my way through school), and I often have to take samples of food in the event that someone gets sick. I will never forget the first time I was asked to take a sample:

Me: "What can I do now?"
Them: "You can take a monster"
Me: "Take a what?"
Them: "A monster"
Me: "... What, right here?"
Them: "No, the soup. And the rice."

As you may well imagine, that led to much confusion. It seriously felt like I was stuck in a real-life Monty Python skit.


It just makes no sense to me. A sample is small. A monster is big. And ugly. And in a sentence "taking a monster" can easily be misconstrued as a childish unintended innuendo. And so, a usually mundane task at work never fails to bring a smile to my face.

Because bringing smiles to faces is what the Gazelle is all about, I propose that we replace the word "sample" or "specimen" with "monster" at every available opportunity. It would feel as good as sponsoring a child in a poor country, with the added benefit of not actually having to help anyone!


Example sentences:
"My wife wants me to go to the fertility count, so I can go make a kwak monster... They supply magazines, right?"
"Okay, I am going to take a monster to the swamp."

It also gives new meaning to the word monster. I bet you now can never again listen to this song seriously (Well, not that you ever could):

Moose Foot

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Lucky

There are a few words in every language which give a certain insight into how the speakers of that language think, and this is one of them. In Dutch, they use the same word "gelukkig" for "happy" and "lucky".

This is only a hunch of mine, but I have the feeling that many English speakers feel like they 'have a right to happiness". You often see this on TV, especially with new-age types, spoiled rich children, overprotective parents and - worst of all - psychologists. They act as if being happy is in the Ten Commandments or Magna freaking Carta. Let us take a quick look at the commonly accepted list of human rights (from : Wikipedia)

• Right to live, exist.
• To work for anyone
• To own property
• Free Speech
• Security
• Safety from violence
• Protection from the law
• Fair trial
• To be innocent until proven guilty
• To be a citizen of a country
• To vote
• To seek asylum if a country treats you badly
• To think freely
• To believe and practice the religion a person wants
• To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
• Health care (medical care)
• Education

While the exclusion of any of these things may be a direct cause of unhappyness, there is nothing on this list that in itself will make you truly happy. These following things are not human rights:

• Watching a someone's head go into an elephant's anus
• Enjoying other people fail spectacularly/The right to laugh
• Long walks on the beach
• Love

Yet, these are all wonderful things that we should cherish for as long as we possibly can. In Dutch, any time someone says they are happy, they are in essence saying that they are lucky; or that they are lucky to be happy. The combination of these two words achieves two important things. It allows us to remain realistic and optomistic when things aren't going our way, and it makes us appreciate happiness that little bit more, however fleeting it may be.

So try to substitute the word "lucky" the next time you mean "happy", and who knows, you might be a little happier for it. I mean, Holland doesn't rank near the top of world happiness rankings for nothing. I can tell you that from my personal experience, it helps.

Doped

Verb (past tense): To have been baptised (as a baby or infant)

Being a student of George Carlin, one might say that I have a slight problem with organised religion. Mainly, a large problem is the lack of freedom of choice given to children, or as Richard Dawkins wrote, we should not label children as Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, Scientologists, Mormonian, or anything, at least until they are old enough to make the choice themselves. I mean, let's be honest for a moment. Children are pretty damn stupid. Okay, now I am paraphrasing Dr. Dawkins, but it's true. Kids are pretty stupid. Even your child. Even you when you were a child. For example, Peek-a-boo. Is there anything more stupid than that game? Peek-a-boo makes Hungry Hungy Hippo's look like a 3D chessboard.


Would you entrust these almost people to the secrets of the meaning of life?

But I digress. Today I am supposed to be attacking organised religion, not attacking children. Not today anyway. The point is, the ritual of baptism is just a ploy to "get em when they are young", to label and mind-control children from the most influential age, and to forever claim a soul as a member of their particular faith. And I am pretty sure it is supposed to be permanent. It is like circumcision, female circumcision, footbinding, a forehead tattoo, or hearing your parents have sex. It stays with you forever. I mean, can you even be un-baptised? I guess we could make up some kind of opposite ritual, like something that involves pouring burning oil onto a priest's forehead, or dipping your balls into some holy water. That would work.

The practice of baptism is obviously a farce anyway, such as made clear when a Catholic high school was established in the town I grew up. The students who initially enrolled were either ones who had religious fanatic parents, or kids who had been expelled from the other three schools. The only problem was, many of these naughty kids were godless, unbaptised heathens. No problem, one quick visit to the church, and they had a brand new certificate of baptism. Although, by this stage, they were probably old enough to make that decision (even though there was no other choice for them in terms of schools they could go to). But even Jesus himself was baptised when he was an adult, and he was presumably mature enough to make that decision for himself. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Jesus was playing Peek-a-boo with the apostles, not even John (the cute one). And that is the point of it all. What Would Jesus Do? Let people make their own damn decisions. So if people want to go through the ceremony, I am happy for them. As long as we can avoid stupid stories about "emergency baptisms", apparently converting your three-year-old daughter to spite your Jewish ex-wife, and Christian babysitters "saving" unconverted children while the heathen parents are taking tango lessons.

Therefore, the point of using the Dutch word "doped" instead of "baptised" takes away the apparently good connotations of the word 'baptised' with something that sounds like "doping" and "duping". The recent scandal of the Catholic Church has made many people question their faith, and I hope this word will help them through their period of doubt and help them claim back their freedom of choice. Colonel Klink... Uncle Fester... Pope Ratzinger asked for forgiveness, but it is hard to forgive something which you were too young to remember.


Example Sentence:

If you have been doped you may well have been duped.