Extraordinarily Loyal Is The Elite

Savvybuyer

fairclaire wrote: »

No need to apologise it's no big fuss
Bet you don't know the lifespan of a red panda without googling it? :rotfl:

......I do :rotfl:

No:o:o:o:o:o:o:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. (Probably ten years, if it's sort of cop car:rotfl:.)

fairclaire

Savvybuyer wrote: »

No:o:o:o:o:o:o:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. (Probably ten years, if it's sort of cop car:rotfl:.)

But is a big fuss - as that song, in that form, has raised it for me:eek::rotfl::(:(.

It's from yesterday. I took DS2 to the zoo and he got totally fixated on reading the life span of each animal we saw.....to the point I'm not sure he noticed the animals

davemorton

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Yes, it did wake me up.. but, only because:D:(: it's no good having a lyric going "I say" and then a dramatic, heart-stopping pause, only for the next line to end with the word "rich". Totally ineffective, failed attempt at censorship. Now, I wonder what rhymes with "rich"? Oh what could that possibly be?:think::rotfl:

[Strike]On a matter of accuracy, the video is also captioned saying that "I Need You is the first single from the second N-Dubz album 'Against All Odds'". However, the album contains the original version, which does not have that pause, and therefore the version playing on the soundtrack is NOT from the album at all.[/Strike] (I note, on checking, I appear to be incorrect. The album also appears to contain that annoying version - ineffective. I also spot the altered sound signature of the word that MSE here won't let me print although I can say it as !!!!!! truncated. Four letters;). (Ineffective failed 'censorship' on that part of the soundtrack there too:p - what a fuss the soundtrack makes there about what would otherwise, for me, be nothing.))

In addition, I note it claims to be the "OFFICIAL" video (original capitals;)). I do not know what is meant by "OFFICIAL" here. I do know that the Advertising Standards Authority, in a separate context, has held that advertising by a different source headlined "OFFICIAL PUBLIC NOTICE!" and the like is misleading because "official" implies that it is by a government body or agency. This is not "official" when it comes from a commercial record company or video distributor. I therefore regard the claim "OFFICIAL VIDEO" as misleading:p. (Not that my opinion as has any matter at all:rotfl:. Mind you, you could argue I have the same power as the ASA, which adjudicates against advertisers' own websites and maintains a list here:

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Non-compliant-online-advertisers.aspx

Arguably rendering the "Authority" as merely the printer and publisher of upheld complaints, the complaints being 'upheld' that is according to the ASA'a own opinion. Attitude Holidays have still not altered the relevant part of their website since November 2011 btw.)

testing.......... !!!!
edit: MOst strange that, you cant type !!!!, but you can !!!!!!, but you cant get away with !!!! in s!!!!horpe (Northernish town )

davemorton

I have been to that zoo, and still didnt know you could get red pandas?

davemorton

Savvybuyer wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:Oh, well done for spotting that!:T Not as if that could be picked up by search engine or anything. I wonder how the person, when they were taking the photo, managed to miss it. Obviously a non-autistic person not paying any attention to the detail again:rotfl:. You can be the government's p**n filter dm. (I wonder if talktalk, Sky, BT etc. will block the site and prevent children seeing that corrupting content:rotfl::rotfl:. It's certainly "sexually explicit". As is the term "sexually explicit" itself. Block MSE. Now!:rotfl::rotfl::D:eek::rotfl:) The entire of YT certainly needs blocking - if one page of 'questionable' content is detected, the whole of the website is/should be blocked. The very first site to be blocked though should be the Daily Mail's website in my view. That would be ironic - and poetic - justice:D.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Chuckling away to myself
Not my spot, from another thread
edit: I still want the job though

purpledonkey

fairclaire wrote: »

Oh my!
Well I'm just posting what I'm listening to

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMhvkC3A84

Here's what I'm listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PoAJqmQDWU

Evening all/morning Savvy

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

testing.......... !!!!
edit: MOst strange that, you cant type !!!!, but you can !!!!!!, but you cant get away with !!!! in s!!!!horpe (Northernish town )

Oh, don't get onto that again!:rotfl: Sillythorpe!:rotfl::rotfl:

I know - it just shows the useless of the computer 'filter' (that often does not filter anything getting to our mind). Presumably we can rely on computers picking up the appropriate websites to block and to allow under "Safe" homes and the like.

Apparently, only 7% of people had chosen the blocking. I saw on BBC News website on Friday - I can't be bothered to find the page again. I didn't even know that I had made a choice - I had to go to the Ofcom report (on which the story was based) and then found a reproduction of the screen where I'd apparently made my choice. I'd chosen 18+, as there are no children in this household. Which disqualifies me from comment of course:rotfl::rotfl:. I so wish that I children, so that my view could then have greater validity:rotfl:. Anyway, I'm glad I've got the right setting.

It turns out a higher percentage have taken the full block option on Talktalk than have on Sky or BT. My theory about why that is the case is again very simple. It's all to do with selling and consumer psychology again. Just like the Videoplus system outsold PDC - even though PDC was a technically superior product. The name "Videoplus" was simple and straight, promotional for people to understand and therefore buy into. No-one knew what Programme Delivery Control or PDC was and thus it didn't sell. Shame, as people generally chose a less effective product - Videoplus simply had the advertising (whether 'free' (news articles etc.) or paid-for) and a name that gelled. Whereas PDC did not. It's very illuminating in my opinion. (The name "Videoplus" suggested that you got something extra (the use of the word "plus") for your money. In fact PDC gave you more.)

Therefore, Talktalk's "Homesafe" system will sell. Because of the name. It's "home" and "safe", suggests it will keep your children safe. (A point that, it might be gleaned, I may somewhat not entirely fail to take issue with.) (Who would not want a product with that name (Homesafe) though?)

This is all just my twopenn'orth* and contention though.

*and more

davemorton

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I had it the other way actually - the 'censored' versions were annoying me, so I got an "Uncensor the Internet" extension plugged in.

Unfortunately, it didn't work. As everytime someone wrote "trafficking" it replaced it! (You'll understand if you have tried that.) I actually wanted to uncensor where someone wrote "!!!!!!" on here as "****ty" (yuck) - sadly, the "Uncensor" plug-in failed to do that as it only recognised the four-letter version but not the six-letter word. I think the opposite position thereby going on with MSE's own inconsistent and ineffective alleged-filter.

:eek: Don't tell them it's ineffective! (They'll only respond to that by doing the opposite to what you want and make it even worse.) Little do they realise that, for me, they replace the original material with more offensive substitutions. Right...move on!

But it does see it if you spell it as !!!!!y (****ey)

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

testing.......... !!!!
edit: MOst strange that, you cant type !!!!, but you can !!!!!!, but you cant get away with !!!! in s!!!!horpe (Northernish town )

That, in my view, is what now should be censored due to its corruption by something else when broadcast on the radio. In 1990, prior to all this happening, I never associated "ish", as in meaning "approximately" with the word they have replaced. Now, after numerous and numerous occasions of replacement over the many years, almost everytime I see "ish" I think of the 'swear'word. I never used to. It is now so associated and referrant to it as to have the same and more offence. Except that the original word doesn't have that offence (usually). An example of both the dysphemism and euphemism treadmills in action.

purpledonkey

David. wrote: »

Not all of you never insulted pd

*raises eyebrow*

bubbs wrote: »

Favouritism:eek::eek::eek::rotfl::rotfl:

No bubbs, selective memory loss

TrulyMadly wrote: »

For years and years I've been blaming our friends dog:o. Whenever we went out together(usually drinking fizz) I would develop hay fever symptoms and thought I had an allergy to dog hair. But then the penny dropped:o
I had some last night and within about an hour my noise was blocked and my eyes were streaming:o

It won't shop me drinking it:o

I can't drink wine/champagne, within minutes it gives me a headache and then develops into a migraine about an hour later. Last time I drank half a small glass of rose my migraine lasted for 3 days