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

Azari

poet123 wrote: »

Neither I nor MrCow would have mentioned physical aggression which was what you clearly suggested.

Only because you insist on taking something that is almost never used in a literal sense literally.

If you'd given the original comment just a little bit of thought you would have realised that it was not intended to be taken as a literal likelihood of physical violence because that would have to have been based on past experience and if you have an old man who has become uncontrollably violent he's very unlikely to be allowed to roam around supermarkets on his own.

All it needed was a little bit of common sense and thought and you would have realised that the intimation of potential violence was not intended to be taken literally.

poet123

Azari wrote: »

Only because you insist on taking something that is almost never used in a literal sense literally.

If you'd given the original comment just a little bit of thought you would have realised that it was not intended to be taken as a literal likelihood of physical violence because that would have to have been based on past experience and if you have an old man who has become uncontrollably violent he's very unlikely to be allowed to roam around supermarkets on his own.

All it needed was a little bit of common sense and thought and you would have realised that the intimation of potential violence was not intended to be taken literally.

Ah, so now we are in agreement that the intimation was there?

The poster was asked and answered you regarding her comment, and she answered in the affirmative, she also thanked my post (99)saying you were wrong to infer she had exaggerated.

"The poster has confirmed how he would react, she disputed your hyperbole claim, and it doesn't fit your assessment.

"Overreacting? Drama Queens? is that because from what the poster said, not what you choose to read, you are wrong and we have pointed that out?:T"

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to poet123 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
chewynut (Today), goater78 (Today)

Given that she knows the person she wrote about and we don't it is safe to assume she has more insight than we do into such a likelihood. So, quite how you can claim to know she didn't mean it, when she said she did when asked I am not sure.....crystal ball? We can only go on what is actually written, and how questions are answered. Turns out she didn't mean it, but she did say it, and the thread developed from there.

You read what you wanted to read, not what she had actually written. Thread is well OT now though!

Azari

poet123 wrote: »

Ah, so now we are in agreement that the intimation was there?

Oh, good grief!

You really are trolling now.

No one could be that dense.

Of course the intimation of physical violence was there. No one has ever denied that. That's the whole point of hyperbole: to exaggerate beyond the point where anyone with any intelligence will take you literally.

Turns out she didn't mean it, but she did say it, and the thread developed from there.

Only a complete idiot would have even given the slightest credence to the idea that an old man on a mobility scooter would perform extreme physical violence on someone. If you had an ounce of sense you'd know that if they were likely to do that they would have been under some sort of supervision.

All the poster meant was that they would have been very annoyed would have made their feelings known. I'm sure that if they had realised that anyone would take such pig headedly literal view they would have been more careful.

You read what you wanted to read, not what she had actually written.

No, I used a modicum of intelligence to understand what was written rather than just take it at face value when the face value was obviously absurd.

poet123

That would be why she thanked my post then when I said you were wrong?

You don't think that a person on a mobility scooter could do some damage?

poet123

All of these are incidents involving mobility scooter drivers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033819/Rage-age-Mobility-scooter-grannies-exchange-blows-supermarket-clash.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046396/Pensioner-hunted-mobility-scooter-hit-run-leaves-boy-3-broken-leg.html

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/motoring-section/scooters-accidents-waiting-to-happen

http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2103782_drunk_oap_released_after_mobility_scooter_incident

Moglex

poet123 wrote: »

That would be why she thanked my post then when I said you were wrong?

You don't think that a person on a mobility scooter could do some damage?

poet123 wrote: »

All of these are incidents involving mobility scooter drivers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033819/Rage-age-Mobility-scooter-grannies-exchange-blows-supermarket-clash.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046396/Pensioner-hunted-mobility-scooter-hit-run-leaves-boy-3-broken-leg.html

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/motoring-section/scooters-accidents-waiting-to-happen

http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2103782_drunk_oap_released_after_mobility_scooter_incident

I've rarely seen anyone on this forum, or any other, who was so determined to make a fool of himself.

Guess what, people who AREN'T on mobility scooters can do damage as well. That does not mean that if their relatives say that they are going to 'tear someone a new one' they mean that they are going to cause physical mayhem.

Anyway, that wasn't the issue. The issue was that you completely misinterpreted a post (in a way that anyone with normal comprehension skills would not have done) and despite the poster correcting your misinterpretation you are still harping on as if you were correct all along.

You weren't.

You made a rather stupid error in assuming someone who was clearly hyping something was talking literally, even when that implied that an 85 year old disabled person was going to mount a vicious physical attack on a relatively young, able bodied, store employee.

There's an old saying that you really would do well to heed: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Common scenes in supermarkets;

Mums stuffing nappy boxes under the buggy. 95% of the time, they pay for them once they reach the till.

Mums stuffing expensive wipes in the rain hood. 80% of the time, they pay for them.

Mums stuffing baby stuff under the buggy, wipes on the top of the hood, steak underneath the rainhood and normal hood. 95% of the time, they 'forget' about the nappies and the steak, but pay for the wipes and a bag of chicken nuggets and Walker's crisps. Oh, and the kid has a toy car, packet of crisps, sausage roll and three packets of razorblades stuffed down behind them.

Mums taking the baby out the buggy, sticking the buggy in the trolley, sticking the toddler in the seat, buying stuff, everything is paid for.


Older/disabled people using scooters. Putting cheap vodka and a few bits of food around them. They pay for everything when they get to the till. Easily 99% of them.

Older/disabled people using scooters, looking around a lot and putting stuff around them and trying to conceal it. Easily dealt with by someone offering to help them unload at the till.



I've watched as people have systematically stuffed clothes into bags and then walked out of the shop. I've seen people pick up 3 items, but only one goes in the basket, 2 go up the sleeve to be dropped into the pocket/other hiding place around the next aisle. Makeup is one of those things, quite often.

I've also seen people deliberately stand their kids right next to something valuable, so that the kid picks it up off the shelves, so they can deny they knew anything about it if they are stopped.



And I have also seen pushouts. They are where people go round, apparently doing a huge shop. Big cereal boxes, Toilet rolls, bread in neat walls, all disguising the fillet steak, the rump steak, the champagne, the whiskey, the crate of Stella, the razor blades, the electrical items they have put in the centre of the trolley. There is easily a couple of hundred pounds worth of stuff shielded by a tenner's worth of bog roll and cornflakes.


They trundle around, doing their big shop, then perhaps forget to get their vegetables. So they go over to the veggie section, and slowly gravitate towards the door.

Next thing you know, the alarms are going and there are two blokes running like mad in opposite directions with their trollies full of the most easily resellable items, the store staff can't keep up with both of them and the odds are that you come across the trolleys and quarter of a mile down the road, where all the expensive stuff has gone, but the loo roll, bread, cornflakes and potatoes are still there.



If you don't get stroppy with them, and always make a point of checking every nook and cranny of the buggy, by all means continue to shop like that. I found that it was easier for a big shop to put DD in the trolley, and for a small shop, balance the basket on the hood. If the stuff is too heavy for the basket, it's too heavy without the basket. I would also suggest smiling at the security guard - and handing over the receipt without a murmur if the alarm goes off as you leave. Eventually, they realise you aren't one of the regular thieves and follow around someone who scowls and mutters under their breath everytime a member of staff approaches instead.

pioneer22

Shop online simples

poet123

Moglex wrote: »

I've rarely seen anyone on this forum, or any other, who was so determined to make a fool of himself.

Guess what, people who AREN'T on mobility scooters can do damage as well. That does not mean that if their relatives say that they are going to 'tear someone a new one' they mean that they are going to cause physical mayhem.

Anyway, that wasn't the issue. The issue was that you completely misinterpreted a post (in a way that anyone with normal comprehension skills would not have done) and despite the poster correcting your misinterpretation you are still harping on as if you were correct all along.

You weren't.

You made a rather stupid error in assuming someone who was clearly hyping something was talking literally, even when that implied that an 85 year old disabled person was going to mount a vicious physical attack on a relatively young, able bodied, store employee.

There's an old saying that you really would do well to heed: When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Do calm down!!

The poster thanked my post why would they do that? They then corrected my interpretation (and that of another poster who also drew the same conclusion) by backtracking after they had thanked the original post, and agreed it wasn't hyperbole. The posts are still there, do take a look.

Of course people not on mobility scooters do damage, but we were discussing whether someone on one could do damage, clearly they could, hence the links. So, quite what your point is there escapes me.

As you were:rotfl:

Melissa22_Mum

Just to clarify I had a bag for life with me when I was 9 months pregnant once. I didn't bother with a basket as it was cumbersome to carry with a big belly.

I never bother with a trolley as I don't expect to get that much, the shop is around the corner.

I usually use the pram to put a few things on. I sometimes buy a 4 pack of water which is 4 x 2ltrs try putting that on the hood of a pram in a basket!. I often find the odd thing I wasn't planning to buy and it piles up. All I was getting at is it's hardly suspicious behaviour I never hide what I'm doing.

I didn't expect this thread to go off on a tangent... well, not seven pages worth at present.