Asda, if you've got a pram, presume your on the rob!

Derivative

I know they have to be vigilant but would a thief
be so obvious?

Yes.
Put yourself in the position of a security guard watching CCTV footage.

What looks more shifty:

1. Someone looking around for staff/cameras and then opening their jacket to hide stuff in.

2. Someone putting items in their pram and then 'forgetting' to pay for them all.

A shoplifter with any brains at all is going to make themselves look as 'normal' as possible. In situation 2, you'd have to have a bloody good memory to remember everything people put under their pram to make sure they paid for it all.

You're on private property. Asda have the right to refuse you as a customer. If they bother you, don't go there. Simples.

mrcow

Derivative wrote: »

What looks more shifty:

1. Someone looking around for staff/cameras and then opening their jacket to hide stuff in.

2. Someone putting items in their pram.

Some people do use their kids as a diversion in order to steal stuff. There is all sorts of scum out there.

Derivative

mrcow wrote: »

Some people do use their kids as a diversion in order to steal stuff. There is all sorts of scum out there.

Exactly my point.
What 'looks' suspicious to you, to a trained security guard may be completely innocuous.
And the other way around. They have much more experience than you do.

Moglex

poet123 wrote: »

What she meant (rather obviously I would have thought)is that he would be abusive, and may even resort to violence, not that he would literally do as she said. So, not hyperbole in that the intent or outcome would not be violent, but incorrect in that he would not literally "tear someone a new one!!"

LOL!

You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'hyperbole'.

Just to help you out:

When you say that someone would do something that is far in excess of what they would actually do that is exactly what hyperbole is.

And, for your information, 'rip him a new one' is a fairly common way of suggesting that someone would get very annoyed. It does not usually imply actual, physical, violence.

poet123

Moglex wrote: »

LOL!

You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'hyperbole'.

Just to help you out:

When you say that someone would do something that is far in excess of what they would actually do that is exactly what hyperbole is.

And, for your information, 'rip him a new one' is a fairly common way of suggesting that someone would get very annoyed. It does not usually imply actual, physical, violence.

Hyperbole is exaggeration, the point about tearing him a new was not exaggerated in that it refers to physical/verbal agression but should not be taken literally. So it was not hyperbole.

Azari

poet123 wrote: »

Hyperbole is exaggeration, the point about tearing him a new was not exaggerated in that it refers to physical/verbal agression but should not be taken literally. So it was not hyperbole.

Are your trolling now?

Or are you trying to demonstrate infeasible stupidity for a bet?

You've just described something that was very clearly an exaggeration and claimed it was not an exaggeration on the basis that it should not be taken literally.

One of the major points about hyperbole is that it usually should not be taken literally.

From Wikipedia:
"Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."

poet123

You fail to see that the underlying inference of agression was meant seriously, so therefore not exaggerated, so therefore that was not hyperbole, the suggestion of the actual action was not meant to be taken literally. There is a subtle but crucial difference.

chewynut

Wow...

Remind me never to make any comments I thought were slightly amusing on the Internet ever again. Clearly some people are determined to think the worst of others, no matter what anybody says.

My grandad is 85. He has to use a mobility scooter because he got awful nerve damage and had to have a serious operation on his spine, spent six months in hospital and now has little use of his right side. He couldn't actually tear somebody a new one. I MEANT that he would have heated words with them to vocalise his disgust at being treated like a shoplifter for using a receptacle that he can manage both in the shop and at home.

That enough for you, or would you like to continue being nasty about an eighty-five year old guy who was in the army and has probably done more for his country than you ever will?

Moglex

poet123 wrote: »

You fail to see that the underlying inference of agression was meant seriously, so therefore not exaggerated, so therefore that was not hyperbole, the suggestion of the actual action was not meant to be taken literally. There is a subtle but crucial difference.

WOW! You really, REALLY, don't want to admit you are wrong, do you? You keep describing something that very obviously IS hype and then claiming it isn't on the most tenuous (and ridiculous) of grounds.

When someone says "my wife/husband would kill me if I did that", guess what? They are almost invariably NOT suggesting that their spouse would commit homicide. Same with the expression under discussion here. The activity suggested is almost certainly impossible and would certainly be fatal if it could be attempted. It's just hype (as the poster who used it has now confirmed).

poet123

chewynut wrote: »

Wow...

Remind me never to make any comments I thought were slightly amusing on the Internet ever again. Clearly some people are determined to think the worst of others, no matter what anybody says.

My grandad is 85. He has to use a mobility scooter because he got awful nerve damage and had to have a serious operation on his spine, spent six months in hospital and now has little use of his right side. He couldn't actually tear somebody a new one. I MEANT that he would have heated words with them to vocalise his disgust at being treated like a shoplifter for using a receptacle that he can manage both in the shop and at home.

That enough for you, or would you like to continue being nasty about an eighty-five year old guy who was in the army and has probably done more for his country than you ever will?

That is not what you said when he made the comment originally. As for nasty it was you who made the comments about your grandfather and his rudeness, so you might like to look closer to home for someone to blame for the nastiness.

In the end we were not discussing your grandfather per se as should be obvious, but the underlying inference in your post and one which you confirmed when asked about, which was not as you have now described it. Had you used the term "vocalise" initially the thread would not have gone down this road. Neither I nor MrCow would have mentioned physical aggression which was what you clearly suggested.