unless i was born yesterday, i do believe that the concept of a fastfood restaurant is self-explanatory: to have food readily available at the customer's whim due to reasons of time constraint and sheer hunger, and not having to wait for ages for food to be served (take note though, five minutes would count as "ages"). absolutely no excuses. at least when chowking changed their marketing strategy to "your food is prepeard-slash-cooked the minute you order it," they made it known that you won't be getting the food right there and then. i should know better, having worked for mcdonald's for two and a half years, the concept of customer satisfaction first comes to mind.

allow me to vent out a frustration i had yesterday when i ordered food through a jollibee branch near our place. yes, the same branch where mcdonald's first stood until it transferred to the nearby mall and thus became it's arch rival; and yes, it was where i worked. moving on, i was on my way home from work and passing by the same route i traverse everyday, i originally thought of eating at kfc. though i am not that hungry, i just thought that it has been a while (a month actually) since i had a taste of that finger-lickin' good chicken. so since there was a kfc branch near the shell gas station entering into valley 1, i nearly made up my mind of stopping there to eat. only thing was, there were limited parking spaces so i thought to myself, "if parking will be full, i'd pass on lunch and head home, since i'm not that hungry anyways." and indeed, parking was full. so i headed on and suddenly got the thought of passing by that jollibee branch. it was a kilometer and a half more past home, but hey, compared to mcdonald's at the mall which was three kilometers further, i'd settle for what's nearer.

now just for the record, there are only two things that i eat at jollibee: their champ burger and their chickenjoy. absolutely nothing else. since at that time, i was not in the mood for rice meals, it's obvious what i would order. so i pressed on for that kilometer and a half towards that jollibee branch and used their drive-thru lane. i was greeted by the usual pleasantries and the young lady then asked what i wanted. "one champ value meal, please" came my quick reply. to which the lady said, "just a moment sir, let me check if we have one available." now i have done this several times before and when i order what i just did, it always, and i mean always, come up with a statement from the lady at the counter saying, "sir, are you willing to wait for 10 minutes for that champ burger?" as expected, i got that same reply. like what? 10 freaking minutes? i could go into that store and cook myself that burger for half the time and even manage to unload an earful to that store's manager for not having what i wanted available!! i mean for christ's sakes, it's their restaurant's high-end burger, and none is ready to be served?! and don't give me that "risk of loss" crap for food-prepared-but-not-served-thus-eventually-going-to-waste rule. that's not the way to do business and how customer satisfaction is achieved! i was in the same line of work five years ago you a**holes and it was always a rule that it's better to have something available and have it written up as a loss if not served than deemed a sale with a customer's complaint on the side. jesus freaking christ!! 10 minutes for a burger?! at a self-proclaimed number one fastfood chain in the country?! kiss my mcdonald's eating a** now, would you?!

granted, i may be biased, but hey, i began my entry with the concept of fastfood restaurants, people. that applies to all fastfood restaurants. from burger king to carl's jr., mcdonald's or pitiful jollibee. fortunately, i wasn't starving at that time or i would've kicked the crap out of everyone working there. i agreed, for the last time, to wait for that burger. as expected, it took more than 10 minutes. in frustration, as the lady on the serving window handed my burger, i snatched it right out of her hands and gave her the dirtiest look and sped off. i thought of speaking to a manager, but i know i'll just be brushed off at the end after being apologized and thanking me for waiting, yada, yada, yada. i'm telling you, that's the last time i'll ever wait 10 minutes for a burger–in any fastfood restaurant. it's a long shot that someone who works at that store will be reading this, but hey, better complain here that kicking the holy hell out of the manager(s) there, right?

no wonder jollibee is for the masses. they can make 'em wait without no complaints… how low can a company go…

hands down, no one can top superman returns as my movie of the year. i thought x-men: the last stand was great, but this takes the cake! i already saw the movie twice, last saturday and yesterday, and i plan on seeing it again this week. call me crazy, but hey, the movie was well done in my book. i also plan to see it on imax, well hopefully sometime soon before the run ends. the opening credits gave me goose bumps from start to finish (twice, on both times i've seen it) as i recalled how the opening credits of the first four superman movies went. john ottman even added a little more to the theme that john williams composed and made it fit for the present viewing audience. heck, i already downloaded the opening credit theme and put it on my phone so that i can listen to it whenever i want.

bryan singer did a very remarkable and commendable job in preserving the tradition of the superman series, yet made the setting advanced or more in tune to present times. unlike in batman begins where the hero's image is, or was changed to reflect a more darker side. don't get me wrong, i like how batman was potrayed in the movie, but with the history of, well, sub par batman flicks, there was already a precedence of how he was, so having it changed was quite unnerving. how it was potrayed now should've been how it all started, but that's a different story. going back to superman, original fans (like me) are pleased to have the same old superhero back. no attitude changes, although i was quite surprised with the bar scene when clark kent was actually drinking beer with jimmy olsen. i never recalled in the past four movies that clark kent was actually drinking any form of alcohol. but in any case, i guess the purpose of this movie was not to re-form or have a different kind of man of steel, but to re-introduce superman to a new audience who never got to see the christopher reeve-billed movie series. brandon routh is an excellent and a splitting image of mister reeve so that too is a good choice.

i've heard that there are potentially two more sequels to come. i just hope that the tradition is still there, yet the storyline should evolve, just like what was on the film (with superman having a son). until then, i'll just wait for the dvd release, and keep listening to the theme on my phone. talk about superman crazy, huh? am i a fan or what?

the phone rang just as he opened the bottle of beer he got from the freezer. it rarely rings nowadays, even if he was at home, yet he pretended not to pay attention and gulped down on the ice-cold beverage. the temparature of the beer made it easier for him to drink and by the time he put down the bottle, it was almost half-empty and the phone was on it's fourth ring. he then calmly picked up the bottle and walked to the living room towards the telephone.

"i know you can hear me, so i'll just say what i have to say. you have done things for me which i have taken for granted. and for that, i'm sorry. you were true to what you felt, true to what you wanted with me–with us, yet i turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to something special, someone special such as you. i wish i could go back and change what was done, and maybe, no, for sure, things would've been better for the both of us. things have become too complicated now for me to even consider the thought of being with you, yet i know, with all your kindness and grace, you would understand like you always did with me and my attitude. i'm sorry for taking your precious time, time i know you could've spent with someone who would feel the same way for you and not… ok, i'll admit it, 'use' what you felt for me in order to take advantage and get what i wanted. i'm sorry for leading you on, yet somewhere along the way, i felt the same way you did, only that, as i've said, things back then were the way they were, and if there was some thing i could've done something about it, i would've. yet the times i've spent with you were one of the things i won't ever forget. and with that, i'm telling, not asking you, to go on. i know you still have feelings for me in one way or the other, but with the way i have treated you, i myself am ashamed to even look at you. i'll always miss the way you held my hand, how you looked at me, the way you made me laugh and assured me when i was down, and just the times when we were together. thank you for coming into my life and i really wish things were different. you'll always be cherished wherever i go, and i hope you'll feel the same way too. again, i'm so sorry…. good… goodbye…."

i really appreciate the comments made on my previous entry. it shows a diverse belief on what we think about free speech and blogging. i for one still stand by what i believe in, and that is, saying what one feels, no matter what it is, or how it's being said. and let that person be; never take blog entries personally. after all, it's an outlet (an emotional outlet if you may) for what a blogger feels. no matter if that blogger directly or indirectly talks about someone or something in a good or bad light. that's how the blogger feels. if a fellow blogger writes something negative or bad about me and directly or indirectly curses me at the end, hey, i wouldn't mind. that's the blogger's right. i'll just comment by thanking the person, at least he or she wrote something about me, and be on my merry way.

to put an end to the subject, i freakingly forgot a very good example of what i'm driving at. take mark cuban, the owner of the dallas mavericks of the nba for instance. his blog, http://www.blogmaverick.com, openly criticizes what he thinks about the officiating in the nba goes. and what happens? he gets fined for posting such remarks, ranging from $250,000 to a whopping $500,000 (currently, the total amount of fines he's paid for his blog entries about the nba is $1.5 million). i mean, WHAT THE FUCK?! (nope, no deletion of certain letters here) why is he being fined for something that he's entitled to say? i mean, i'm no dallas mavericks fan, but as i've said, everyone has a right to say anything. he just says, "Ed Rush (head of nba referees) couldn't manage a dairy queen franchise" and boom, 500 large, on the spot. i mean, SO WHAT?! if that's what he thinks, then he has every right to say it. why penalize him for exercising his God-given right to free speech? yet, being fined as it is, he doesn't complain or bitch about it, and goes further by matching the amount of the fine by giving the same amount to charity. now that's something we can all learn from. the nba should've just kept its big corporate mouth shut about what mark cuban said and just concentrate on running the company, not penalizing or issuing thousands of dollars worth of fines for something that any person can say. all i can say that what is being done to him by the nba is insane.

there. that's my final say on the topic. and to -a-, here's a sincere message to you. i don't know if you'll believe me or not, but here goes: i'm not mad at you; i never was. i just felt what i felt that day when i read that email and posted it here since, well, as an outlet. that didn't mean that i was totally mad or pissed off at you. i didn't expect, as i feel about topics or how my day went that i post on my blog, to be taken personally (and will continue to do so), because it's just how i post. now, whatever things you said about me in your blog, i respect because mainly, it's your domain. i still treasure the time when we were friends, i still treat you as one, and i'll always have the highest respect for you. we may agree to disagree (as you've described, when things became too intense) on some things, but respect as a person and someone who considered me as once a friend will always be there.

alrighty then. can't wait for superman returns….

answer me this, do you think blogs are a person's way of expressing himself or herself freely? if yes, then is there a limit to what a blogger should post? because correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i understand, a blog is a person's outlet for whatever he or she feels about anything and everything, and therefore, whatever he or she posts has no intention whatsoever of hurting or damaging something or someone unless it is clearly stated on the entry. a blog is a person's own personal space, and should be immune to personal ridicule, government harrassment, or banishment. it's kinda hard to explain what i'm really driving at, but the moment we start limiting free speech, then it's no longer…. "free," right?