Just harkening back to one experience I had where a young woman who’s dating a family-friend randomly sent me a follow-request on Insta., I slid into her DMs after just accepting it on the basis of having mutual friends and asked who she was, she be like “don’t you know the people you add”. One thing becomes another and before you know it her boyfriend’s threatening to jump me. Just unnecessarily irritants fuelled by tequila-fuelled misunderstandings. I really wasn’t looking for drama that weekend. I was literally just trying to be nice.

The it’s-a-tough-world-out-there toxic narrative that nobody truly cares about you.

It’s funny that we see the world on telly and in the media as a cruel , uncaring, toxic wasteland and yet when we are out and about 99% of folk we meet are absolutely lovely !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Windy voice-notes.

Smokers’ cough. Coughing in-general is an irritating sound.

Occasional Emmerdale-clashes perpetuating the idea that EastEnders was consistently hovering around the 6-7 million mark in years like 2004 and 2006 (excluding 2005, which is generally considered more positively than negatively and rightly a real fan-favourite, especially among the more seasoned/long-term fans, and rightly-so; truly phenomenal year).

It’s true that ratings dipped a bit at the right-side bookend of the Louise Berridge era but even that only meant they dipped to about 10/11 million (as-opposed to the more regular 12-14 million they were getting in 2003 and earlier 2004), except the episodes that went head-to-head with Emmerdale. And that’s more-or-less how it stayed until world-cup season 2006, 10/11 (sometimes 12+ million) million, and usually about 45-55% share of the available audience day-by-day. Pretty-much the only episodes that dipped below the absolute lows of 8 million (which was considered quite low at the time, and happened only in the peak of the warmer months) was when they clashed with Emmerdale head-to-head.

Santer’s era and beyond plummeted to below 6 million (the lowest clash-figure up-to late-mid. 2006) over and over again, but no-one quotes those figures as the norm, because it’s rightly-acknowledged that the norm for that era, outside annoying Emmerdale-clashes, was 8-10 million. Likewise, the late-mid. 2004 - mid.-2006 norm was 10-12 million (later 2006 is more like 2007-11 in terms of ratings). Not every episode of EastEnders in 2008 hovered around 4/5 million and not every episode of EastEnders in 2006 was hovering around 6m or 3.9 million. Only the ones that clashed with Emmerdale. But to this day a lot of people still don’t know that and just believe the myth that EastEnders did terribly in the ratings in those years. The only difference is the press laid off after a certain point, but the damage they did to a lot of people’s perceptions of EE in the mid.-noughties is real. Even Kathleen Hutchinson herself got sucked into it at one point.

That said, Sonia and Naomi’s lesbian affair (beginning later in 2005 and continuing in full swing throughout 2006) was a truly revolting storyline, not because Sonia tapped into her bisexuality but because of how clunky and random it was. That was truly abysmal, but it was just one link in a chain of heat for Sonia and easily discarded so it didn’t do much damage to her character. It’s just that they were better-off as friends. Having Sonia explore her sexuality with Naomi felt contrived, not earned.

People who are on amicable terms with the world but just honouring their peace and boundaries being accused of “locking themselves up” is pretty irritating. No-one owes you their presence at a wedding of their buddy’s sister who’s even blocked them on Instagram for some reason best-known to her to withstand the scrutiny of your pathologisation of self-care. Maybe they want to lose weight or grow their hair back before they start showing up at events where everyone’s tryna be on their dapper (on their dap/on-dap, still.). Maybe they’re just curating their energy for more intimate one-on-ones/linking in small groups of friends (dispositionally or just at this particular time in their lives). Maybe they value presence over quantity in their engagements and always did but are now at an age or a point in their life where they have more autonomy and agency over where they go and how they spend their energy, outside the crux of formative childhood and teenage experiences and expectations. Maybe more of their time’s going into work so they can make a particular amount of donation to a cancer-trust that hits close to home.

Whatever it is, it’s not really for you to speculate on what’s wrong with them just-because they didn’t go to the wedding or naming-ceremony of someone they’re not particularly close to in the first place. People are different, and they’re especially probably perfectly fine if they’re not known for being particularly outgoing people to begin with, because then it’s characteristic. Just curated. Gossiping and speculating about why they’re not giving you the presence you expect in those environments doesn’t help anyone.

…some of these sound like quite big things to irritate, Redway…(…I think with weddings for instance…)…the cost is connected to the expected guest list so speculation is possibly inevitable as well…

Do you recall the Covid years when a slight cough in Tesco saw you dragged out and flogged by the bins ..

I was scared of even clearing my throat !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People who don’t take out time to read things properly on WhatsApp, because all they want to do is just skip that part and have a ’phone-call. It pays to be literate. There’s some fundamental things for context that might only come through in writing, especially if the person’s not comfortable divulging some of those deeper thoughts and experiences randomly on a call (which isn’t uncommon if they’re deeply introverted). It pays to be literate. Intentional, curated communication that sets certain boundaries over immediacy isn’t without its value even on WhatsApp/SMS. Text gives many people room to layer the table for nuance, to reveal certain truths that they might’ve sat on for decades without pressure. You don’t want to skimp over the nuance, tone and boundaries being communicated with you just-because you’re in a rush to just talk, because for people like that, text isn’t just filler to precurse to a call. It’s foundation, and the only space where long-buried thoughts can be safely expressed without pressure.

So ya. People who don’t like to just sit down and read really annoy me. Especially when you’ve told them more than once, consecutively, that there’s stuff they need to sit down and read properly before the call, yet they don’t even read that the third time you say it because they can’t communicate like you via text. It’s just so frustrating.

ITV’s new team sheets !

They don’t bother showing the expected team layout just list the names !!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...bdf5d978f5.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s true (re. the cost).

Wimbledon. The tournament, not the area generally.

What !!!

I love Wimbledon fortnight !


I watched yesterday’s AMAZING final - all 5 hours + !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact that I’m always editing and editing my posts. I’d rather just do it all in one go, but deeper context comes to me after I’ve already made my point.

The way Jamie Baldwin (Corrie) were always chewing gum. Not so much irritating as just smug, the way he went for it, fighting his dad with a chewy in his mouth. I don’t know if it was just fashion at the time (I can’t remember) but it just makes him look so childish.

Like I said, though, it’s not irritating. Just so smug it’s funny.

Heck, that reminds me of a bona-fide irritant. The very fact that this Monday we could only be re-acquainted with Jamie chomping away in smug once, because only the Sunday-bill (just one half-hour episode, as was the weekend-schedule for Corrie in those days) has been uploaded. Not only does it not help with the Sunday entertainment-void (Sunday bills should be re-aired on Sundays; like, duh … it gives people some telly to get their teeth into on the most boring day of the week) but it also ensures that there’re two Monday bills to watch on a Monday, like every other day of the week. I don’t know why the transmissional powers that be are so allergic to putting decent stuff on telly besides Songs of Praise on on a Sunday at this point.

Ugh. There sure-are a lot of things that grind my gear. This is becoming a book at this point.

Yoruba people who don’t know the seriousness of the Biafran war (and often-times it will show in the way they talk about and regard Igbos) really don’t help themselves. I’m sure if I was Peter Obi at this point in time (putting aside Nnamdi Kanu now; let’s just forget about him), I’d be pretty pissed. That historical blind spot can obstruct mutual respect more than it should.

Agreed.

He was quite funny.

TV is always OTT.:laugh:

The evil times.

People who don’t acknowledge the dignity of people’s side-hustles, try and throw it back in the grafter’s face, mock the slow exponential growth and think they’re just wasting their time because it seems to be taking more time for not enough money, if any, than it’s worth. It’s no business of yours what shade and degree of fulfilment someone gets out of their side-hustle, especially when it enriches other people’s lives. You have no right to decide what brings someone fulfilment, especially when you don’t even know them that personally. It’s no business of yours.

People who don’t respect the dignity of labour, and individual circumstances (e.g., working part-time because of health-issues/more pressing personal commitments, and needing universal credit to top them up some months), are up there with notorious, pathological gossips (just-as there are pathological liars) as some of the most toxic people going.

The fact that there are people out there who lump Linda (EastEnders) in with the Danny-Dyer act and miss the fact that she’s a power-house character (especially now that she’s been to rehab., sobered up and dropped her alcoholic self-destruct mode), and Kellie Bright a terrific actress. She’s probably the best she’s ever been at the moment, the resident agony-aunt of the square.
Her drunk-acting wasn’t up to much and on that plain she was certainly no Steve McFadden but otherwise she’s terrific, just like she was in Bad Girls.

People using emojis in serious debates like there aren't enough words.

People who refuse to discuss anything in serious debates, like there aren't enough sub-forums.