A true story from the Japanese Embassy in US:
> Prime Minister Mori was given some basic English conversation training
> before he
> visits Washington and meets with President Bill Clinton. The instructor
> Mori ” Prime Minister,
> when you shake hand with President Clinton, please say ‘how are you’. Then
> would say “I am fine, and you ?” Then you should say ‘me too’. Afterwards
> translators will do all the work for you.”
> It looks quite simple, but the truth is …
> When Mori met Clinton, he mistakenly said “Who Are You ?”. Mr. Clinton was
> a bit
> shocked but still managed to react with humor : “Well, I am Hillary’s
> ha ha…” Then Mori
> replied confidently “Me too, ha ha ha..”
> Then there was a long silent moment in the meeting room.
Subject : Re: Re: poliitika
From : ***.***@mail.ee>
To : ***@email.ee
Date : Nov 30 11:41
EESTI DEMOKRAATIA: Sul on kaks lehma ja need varastatakse sinult ära. Kohus leiab, et need on varga lehmad.
PRANTSUSE DEMOKRAATIA: Riik maksab sulle peale, et sa peaksid kahte lehma.
EUROOPA LIIDU DEMOKRAATIA: Sulle antakse paber, mis on tÃµend selle kohta, et sul oli aastal 1789 kaks lehma.
> TAOISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Valitsus
> ei puutu asjasse.
> MAOISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Valitsus
> võtab sult need ära ja annab vastu
> MÜSTITSISM: Lehmapidamine on
> —– Original Message —–
> From: ***.***.firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: <***@***.ee>;
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000
> 10:45 AM
> Subject: poliitika
> Sissejuhatus poliitikateooriasse
> FEODALISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Sinu
> valitseja võµtab osa piimast omale.
> TOTALITARISM: Sul on kaks lehma.
> Valitsus võtab need omale ja eitab,
> nad üldse olemas olnud on. Piim
> SOTSIALISM: Sul on kaks lehma, sa
> annad ühe neist naabrile.
> TÕELINE SOTSIALISM: Sul on kaks
> lehma. Valitsuse kÃ¤su kohaselt pead
> sa need
> panema ühte lauta koos kõigi teiste
> lehmadega ja nende kõigi eest
> Valitsus annab sulle nii palju piima,
> kui sul vaja on.
> BÜROKRAATLIK SOTSIALISM: Sul on kaks
> lehma. Valitsuse käsu kohaselt pead
> sa need panema ühte lauta koos kõigi
> teiste lehmadega ning neid hakkavad
> hooldama endised kanatalitajad. Sina
> pead hakkama kanu hooldama. Valitsus
> annab sulle nii palju piima ja mune,
> kui palju sulle normidega ette nähtud
> BÜROKRAATIA: Sul on kaks lehma.
> Kõigepealt koostab valitsus seaduse,
> sa neid toita võid ja millal lüpsta
> tohid. Seejärel makstakse sulle, et
> sa lehmi lüpsma ei hakkaks. Peale
> seda võtab valitsus mõlemad lehmad,
> ühe, lüpsab teise ning valab piima
> rentslisse; sina aga pead kirjutama
> seletuskirjasid kadunud lehmade
> KOMMUNISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Sa
> annad need valitsusele, valitsus
> annab sulle piima.
> TÕELINE KOMMUNISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Su naabrid aitavad lehma eest hoolitseda
> ja te jagate piima omavahel.
> VENE KOMMUNISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Sina hoolitsed nende eest ja valitsus
> võtab sult piima.
> FASHISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Piima
> annad sa valitsusele.
> TÕELINE FASHISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Valitsus vÃµtab need mõlemad omale, palkab
> su nende eest hoolitsema ja müüb
> seejärel sulle piima.
> NATSISM: Valitsus laseb su maha ja toidab su lehmadega armeed ja
> KAPITALISM: Sul on kaks lehma. Sa müüd ühe maha ja ostad pulli või lööd mõlemad lehmad maha ja hakkad
> McDonaldsiga konkureerima.
> ANARHIA: Sul on paar lehma. Varastad
> veel mõned lehmad juurde, samal ajal
> kui su naabrid üritavad sind tappa ja
> sinu lehmasid omale saada.
> MILITARISM: Sul on kaks lehma.
> Valitsus võtab mõlemad omale ja saadab sulle
> TÕELINE DEMOKRAATIA: Sul on kaks lehma. Su naaber otsustab, kes saab piima
> AMEERIKA DEMOKRAATIA: Valitsus lubab sulle anda kaks lehma, kui sa
> nende poolt. Peale valimisi
> süüdistatakse presidenti lehmade
> tulevikuga spekuleerimises. Ajakirjandus arutab
> Cowgate’i afääri võimalikkusest.
> BRITI DEMOKRAATIA: Sul on kaks lehma.
> Sa toidad neid lamba ajudega ja nad lähevad hulluks. Valitsus ei tee midagi.
> SINGAPURI DEMOKRAATIA: Sul on kaks
> lehma. Valitsus määrab sulle trahvi kahe
> kodulooma eluruumides hoidmise eest.
> SÜRREALISM: Sul on kaks kaelkirjakut.
> Valitsus nõuab, et sa hakkaksid
> viiulitundides käima.
> Lugupeetud ostja!
> Meie kõige suurem konkurent firma Nokia jagab interneti kaudu tasuta
> Firma Ericsson tahab vastandada Nokiale enda pakkumisega.Sellepärast jagame
> meie samuti tasuta Ericssoni viimaseid WAP mudelite mobiiltelefone. Need
> telefonid on spetsiaalselt välja töötatud õnnelike ostjate jaoks, kes
> hindavad tänapäevast tehnoloogiat.
> Jagades tasuta telefone saame me vastu firma Ericsson jaoks väärtusliku
> tagasiside ostjatega ja suurepärase efekti meie kuulutuse laialisaatmisest.
> Teie poolt on vaja saata see kuulutus enda 8-le sõbrale.
> Kahe nädala möödumisel teie saate endale uue Ericsson T18 mobiiltelefoni.
> Juhul, kui Teie saadate selle kuulutuse 20 sõbrale, siisTeil on võimalus
> saada uuema Ericssoni R320 Wap.
> NB! Ärge unustage saata koopia e- maili aadressile
> email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> See on meie ainus võimalus veenduda, et Teie olete saatnud selle kuulutuse
> enda sõpradele.
> Jenna Elfman
> Ericsson Europe Ltd
> Marketingi osakonna juhataja
> E-mail: email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
For those of you considering a life of crime, read the following non-urban legends carefully. Hamfat the Virtuous
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 3:03 PM
Subject: Humor – The Long Awaited 2000 Darwin Awards
RUNNER-UP # 8 Babyface Nelson He Wasn’t Colorado Springs: A guy walked into a little corner store with a shotgun and demanded all the cash from the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a bag, the robber saw a bottle of scotch that he wanted behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier to put it in the bag as well, but he refused and said “Because I don’t believe you are over 21.” The robber said he was, but the clerk still refused to give it to him because he didn’t believe him. At this point the robber took his drivers license out of his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk looked it over, and agreed that the man was in fact over 21 and he put the scotch in the bag. The robber then ran from the store with his loot. The cashier promptly called the police and gave the name and address of the robber that he got off the license. They arrested the robber two hours later.
RUNNER-UP # 7 Hazards of Theft in the Cyber-age A woman was reporting her car as stolen, and mentioned that there was a car phone in it. The policeman taking the report called the phone and told the guy that answered that he had read the ad in the newspaper and wanted to buy the car. They arranged to meet, and the thief was arrested.
RUNNER-UP # 6 The Hazards of Ignorance Coupled with Conformity San Francisco: A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank of America, walked into the branch and wrote “this iz a stikkup. Put all your muny in this bag.” While standing in line, waiting to give his note to the teller, he began to worry that someone had seen him write the note and might call the police before he reached the teller window. So he left the Bank of America and crossed the street to Wells Fargo. After waiting a few minutes in line, he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She read it and, surmising from his spelling errors that he was not the brightest light in the harbor, told him that she could not accept his stickup note because it was written on a Bank of America deposit slip and that he would either have to fill out a Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said “OK” and left. The Wells Fargo teller then called the police who arrested the man a few minutes later, as he was waiting in line back at Bank of America.
RUNNER-UP # 5 A Picture is Worth a 1000 Threats. >From England: A motorist was unknowingly caught in an automated speed trap that measured his speed using radar and photographed his car. He later received in the mail a ticket for 40 Pounds and a photo of his car. Instead of payment, he sent the police department a photograph of 40 Pounds. Several days later, he received a letter from the police that contained another picture … of handcuffs. The motorist promptly sent the money for the fine.
RUNNER-UP # 4: Hubris in Action Drug Possession Defendant Christopher Jansen, on trial in March in Pontiac, Michigan, said he had been searched without a warrant. The prosecutor said the officer didn’t need a warrant because a “bulge” in Christopher’s jacket could have been a gun. “Nonsense,” said Christopher, who happened to be wearing the same jacket that day in court. He handed it over so the judge could see it. The judge discovered a packet of cocaine in the pocket and laughed so hard he required a five minute recess to compose himself.
RUNNER-UP # 3 Silence Might have been Golden Oklahoma City: Dennis Newton was on trial for the armed robbery of a convenience store in district court when he fired his lawyer. Assistant district attorney Larry Jones said Newton, 47, was doing a fair job of defending himself until the store manager testified that Newton was the robber. Newton jumped up, accused the woman of lying and then said, “I should of blown your (expletive) head off.” The defendant paused, then quickly added, “If I’d been the one that was there.” The jury took 20 minutes to convict Newton and recommended a 30-year sentence.
RUNNER-UP # 2 Well, didn’t curiosity kill the cat?
Detroit: R.C. Gaitlan, 21, walked up to two patrol officers who were showing their squad car computer felon-location equipment to children in a Detroit neighborhood. When he asked how the system worked, the officer asked him for identification. Gaitlan gave them his drivers license, they entered it into the computer, and moments later they arrested Gaitlan because information on the screen showed Gaitlan was wanted for a two-year-old armed robbery in St. Louis, Missouri.
RUNNER-UP # 1 Know With Whom You Deal Another from Detroit: A pair of Michigan robbers entered a record shop nervously waving revolvers. The first one shouted, “Nobody move!” When his partner moved, the startled first bandit shot him.
THE WINNER A Charlotte, NC, man having purchased a case of very rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated the cigars were lost in a series of small fires.” The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The man sued…. and won. In delivering the ruling the judge agreeing that the claim was frivolous, stated nevertheless that the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure against fire, without defining what it considered to be “unacceptable fire,” and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in “the fires.” After the man cashed the check, however, the company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.
Note: Never try to outsmart an insurance co!