Three random thoughts that I considered blogworthy:
1. If the Rolling Stones’ tour plane crashed in the Andes, like the people from Alive, and Keith Richards was the first to die, and the rest were starving to death, would it even be worth it to eat him? If they did eat him, do you think they would have some kind of crazy buzz/trip/hallucination, or do you think that the metabolized drug residues would simply make him toxic? Of course, this is ignoring any other moral questions about cannibalism, but I would imagine that eating Keith Richards would rank somewhere between eating a pot brownie and a poison arrow frog.
2. Is there a word for what happens when you correct someone’s grammar or spelling, but your correction itself is wrong? For Example:
person 1: “Between you and me, I think we’re gonna lose this game”
person 2: “Don’t you mean, ‘between you and I’?”
or,
person 1: “There’s a lot less space here than in the other building.”
person 2: “I think you meant to say, ‘a lot fewer space’.”
What would you call what person 2 is doing? Miscorrecting? Incorrecting? You wouldn’t call it “wronging”, because that’s already a word. “Erroring” doesn’t flow very well. I think miscorrecting would be a good word, but as far as I know, it doesn’t exist (at least Microsoft Word doesn’t recognize it).
3. There is a McDonald’s commercial running right now that I don’t understand at all. Actually, I understand the main point of the commercial, but there’s a joke at the end that makes absolutely no sense to me. The commercial is basically a bunch of people standing around their desks at an office, talking about the value of the dollar. They begin the commercial making small talk about how weak the dollar is, then when one of their coworkers walks in with a double cheeseburger of the dollar menu, they start spouting a bunch of other crap about how strong the dollar seems. Then, at the end of the commercial, the following dialogue ensues:
Person 1: “Hey man, how are you fixed for fries?”
Person 2 (guy with McDonald’s stuff): “I’m good.”
Person 3: “That’s cold, man.”
I don’t understand it. What is so cold about asking someone how they’re fixed for fries? Does it have something to do with the value of the dollar? Does it have something with the wording of the question? Does it have something to do with the fries? Is it because no one else at the office has McDonald’s food? SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME. I don’t know if the advertising people are smarter than I am, dumber than I am , or just have a really weird sense of humor. Perhaps part of the commercial that made this make sense got edited out somehow.
If anyone has an answer to any of these questions, feel free to leave them as a comment. I know that they’re kind of rhetorical questions (with the exception of the McDonald’s thing), but I would still be grateful for any thoughts anyone wishes to contribute. Tootles.
Tags: Grammar, Keith Richards, McDonald's
April 30, 2008 at 12:33 am |
I tried looking into this question (I haven’t seen the commercial so I can’t help you there), apparently ‘how are you fixed’ means ‘do you have enough’ or ‘do you have any need for’ something… my guess is that, possibly… it might somehow refer to fixed-commodity trading, or fixed-rate currency valuation, or something else that comes up when you use the word “fixed” (in a market sense, not like fixing pets) but in that case, it is just a terrible ad because McDonald’s isn’t really just selling to i-bankers and trading analysts.
OH! Now I get it. I just found the video on Youtube. It’s still stupid. Okay so they’re talking about how the dollar is weak, then the guy comes back and bought lunch from the dollar menu… I think they’re assuming that all he could afford for his money was the dollar cheeseburger maybe? So the guy asks him, “how are you fixed on fries” which I think means “do you have enough money for fries,” or “do you need me to lend you some money for fries.” so possibly making fun of him for getting McD’s and being cheap? Not sure. So then the other guy says “that’s cold” because of that implication that he couldn’t afford fries, even though he eats one and deflects the comment by indicating that he could afford them.
Or the other possible explanation of the exchange is that the seated guy was asking for fries, maybe saying “do you have extra” or “have any you want to get rid of” and when he says “no I’m good” i.e. “I won’t share” the “that’s cold” comment would then be directed at the guy who said no to a request to share his fries. But given the seated guy’s response, my guess is that it’s that first explanation.
But yeah. Weird commercial. And really only aimed at upper-middle-class professionals it seems like, given the office environment and the implication that they work possibly in a financial market where currency trading takes place. Although certainly the weak dollar has effects which spill over into all class strata.
Anyway that’s what I think it is.