It seems I am now a ‘gammon’, a middle aged straight white man who voted ‘leave’. At least I think that’s the definition.
It’s a sort of insult, you see. Not a particularly good one, there are far, far worse things I could be called and over the years I have indeed been called most of them. ‘Gammon’ does not leave me feeling insulted. It leaves me feeling perplexed.
I mean, If you’re going for meat-based insults surely ‘tripe’ is a better option? Pale, rubbery and bland. Or perhaps ‘chitterlings’. The intestinal offal that really, nobody wants to eat unless they absolutely have to. The latter has the added advantage that most of today’s youth have no idea what ‘chitterlings’ are, so you could greet them with ‘How are you, my little chitterlings?’ for days before one of them gets curious enough to look it up.
But.. gammon? I’m being compared to posh ham? Why not go the whole way and call me sirloin or T-bone? Those would be just as perplexing if used as insults. These SJWs have relied on the old ‘racist-Nazi-bigot’ mantra for a very long time, and this new ‘insult’ goes a long way to explaining why.
They clearly have no imagination. The little light that goes on above their heads when they have an idea must be like illuminating a cathedral with a five watt filament bulb.
Call me ‘gammon’ to my face and I will not be in the least bit insulted. I’m not going to call you racist or ageist or pork-product-ist. I am going to laugh and compare you to a recently defaecated tapeworm segment, in terms of both appearance and intelligence. I might respond by comparing you, unfavourably, to a suppurating pustule or to the back-end consequence of feeding an elephant a massive amount of Vindaloo.
Or I might just call you ‘lamb chop’, just so you can be as baffled as I am.
There is much hoo-ha on Twitter about this. One commenter even refers to it as the ‘G-word’. Yes, it’s already verboten! Brilliant! We can now go into Tesco and ask if they have any of the G-word ham. When they finally ‘get it’ and say ‘Oh, you mean gammon?’ we can then launch into faux-outrage and call the police. We can also take a permanent marker and black out ‘ammon’ on every packet. Oh, the fun to have…
They have screwed up again. The print version of ‘Rebellion’ has been incorrectly linked to another novel by the same name, which is entirely dissimilar in every way to Mark Ellott’s book. Only the title is the same. Oh and the author’s first name. The Kindle version is unaffected. ‘Click to look inside’ the Kindle version and you get the right book. On the print version, it links to the other author’s content. They seem to be sending out the right print version though.
There are two reviews which are for the other book. At least they are 5 star reviews, might as well grab that silver lining while it’s there. I have informed Amazon of the blunder, of course nothing has happened so I will inform them again from another account.
This brings us to the favour. If you have time and the inclination, could you click the ‘report incorrect product information’ link on that page and tell them the ‘look inside’ links to the wrong book? Maybe if they get a few more reports they’ll actually take notice.
This is incredibly irritating. I swore not to play with the new G scale trains until this book and Lee Bidgood’s were done and there is a pile of track, two locomotives, three coaches (they are seriously big!) and five freight wagons waiting for me. I’m trying to finish the cover for Lee’s book and ‘Rebellion’ should have been clear by now. Still, it can’t be too easy, eh?
The cover is coming along. So many scenes from the book I wanted to depict but the orange Lada, the scene on the Fred Flintstone slide in the playground and the transsexual policeman really had to be in there. It’s testing my drawing skills to the limit but I think it’s going to be worth it in the end.
If you get the right book on ‘click to look inside’, it means they finally fixed it.
I hope so. It’s too good a story to get this kind of treatment.