Enter, Laugh, Integrate, Talk, Enjoy.

Tw1nb0ys

Oops meant to say good evening

Savvybuyer

I've just been looking back and noticed that all my posts are long posts:eek::eek:. Everyone else seems to appear, post one line and that's it!:eek::rotfl:

Tw1nb0ys

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I've just been looking back and noticed that all my posts are long posts:eek::eek:. Everyone else seems to appear, post one line and that's it!:eek::rotfl:

With the exception of that one :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Savvybuyer

Tw1nb0ys wrote: »

Yesterday I was stood at a crossing waiting for the green man. It is a particular complicated series of crossings, you have to wait for 3 consecutive green men to get across the entire road.

Anyway I was patiently waiting for the green Man, it was around school pick up time. 2 PCSO's just casually walked across when the man was still red. I told them they really should be leading by example and wait for the green man. To which theyreplied, believe it or not we have places to go!

I said oh yeah, I'm sure you would accept that excuse if a child did it!
:mad::mad::mad: really annoys me when people don't wait fir the green nan. This particular junction is busy and traffic can get you from 3 directions.

Rant over

People do generally do that (not just PCSOs). Doesn't set a good example, I agree, to the kids - particularly younger ones - who may not be aware of how to cross safely, if appropriate, when the lights are still on red. (Come on - if it's middle of the night - or even if not - and no cars around, are you going to stand there waiting?!? We have no offence of jaywalking in this country.)

I bet they thought you were very rude for daring to tell them! (Though I suspect you'd also be able to tell what they felt and therefore whether, and at what point, to tell them. That's a benefit of not having Asperger's: but I wouldn't have dared say anything to them, it would have been at the 'wrong' moment or my tone would have unintentionally come across as something other than what I intended - but I suspect I think about it too much:eek:.)

But, maybe, it's like everything else - they, supposedly, have this rule, such as crossing on the Green Man and following the "Green Cross Code", yet no-one ever complies with it. I'd be standing there, waiting at the red man until it changed to green, no matter how many other people crossed and regardless of if there was absolutely no traffic, at 3am, at all! That was me (with exaggeration to cover a 3am situation that wasn't actuality), and I never understood why no-one else ever followed the rule. (This is Asperger's life for you again.) In more recent years, now I've become, finally, aware of the social context, I know that, although there is technically in theory a "rule", which are told at school, of the Green Cross Code, that the world, in practice, does not operate according to that set of rules but, instead, the social rule, the unwritten one (is the Green Cross Code written?:think:) that operates in practice, is that you completely ignore anything about such a Green Cross Code and cross if there's no traffic to hit you regardless of what the lights are or are not showing. Come on, face it people, that's the true rule and the one that (it appears to me) is followed in practice! (Irregardless of whether it should be or not.)

It's the same as the practice on other things and something else, such as one example is swearing. You are taught not to swear ever at school by teachers*/ possibly parents/carers but the actual rule is that people swear all the time, are "abusive" or use as banter with people they know and just don't do it in people in front of strangers. Except that all people around me nowadays just do that anyway - the only thing they don't seem to do much is go up to the supermarket or bank cashier and yell swearing in their face! Otherwise, the "rule" certainly does not apply at all, certainly not in the theory way that my schoolteachers tried to maintain the pretence that it did and the rule, in practice, is very very different. As this Asperger came to realise only many years after almost everyone else:(:rotfl::doh:.

Anyway, I'm supposed not to know what banter is:rotfl::rotfl:.

(Meanwhile, as a result of the rule that doesn't apply that was originally set out to me, I can't physically bring myself to say certain words even in places in which everyone around me is doing so (and in which it is, therefore, socially acceptable whether or not some people may or may not agree with it) but I've suppressed myself so much, in compliance and pedantic following of the "rule" set out by my teachers, that I physically have a problem even voicing it - I wish this was not me - and, I believe, maybe interestingly, maybe not, I have lost friends over the years due to my inability to swear and my sounding rather pompous and formal rather than 'fitting in' by using the socially acceptable language between friends - I didn't realise any of this until the last decade or so: I sound odd and out of place, and I don't make friends for that reason.)

*Or at least you were in my day.

Savvybuyer

Don't let children see my posts btw:rotfl:, can't possibly let them know any true position!:D:)

But...if they understood it all anyway, then they would know the true position as to how people are supposed to behave (namely swear all the time in their friends' social group at school*) and wouldn't cause any problem! *:eek::eek:I was out calling the teachers when they did that!:rotfl: No wonder, I nowadays realise, that I didn't make friends!

I suspect that almost all children know it all intuitively anyway, even though the true rule is never spoken or set down anywhere in writing. But, not me, they told me a different rule to what was the actual way of behaving and I followed the rule I was told, only discovering the true position about twenty years later!:rotfl: Even then it was never explained to me by anyone, and I've spent the last twenty years figuring it all out by myself!:D

Tw1nb0ys

Savvybuyer wrote: »

People do generally do that (not just PCSOs). Doesn't set a good example, I agree, to the kids - particularly younger ones - who may not be aware of how to cross safely, if appropriate, when the lights are still on red. (Come on - if it's middle of the night - or even if not - and no cars around, are you going to stand there waiting?!? We have no offence of jaywalking in this country.)

I bet they thought you were very rude for daring to tell them! (Though I suspect you'd also be able to tell what they felt and therefore whether, and at what point, to tell them. That's a benefit of not having Asperger's: but I wouldn't have dared say anything to them, it would have been at the 'wrong' moment or my tone would have unintentionally come across as something other than what I intended - but I suspect I think about it too much:eek:.)

But, maybe, it's like everything else - they, supposedly, have this rule, such as crossing on the Green Man and following the "Green Cross Code", yet no-one ever complies with it. I'd be standing there, waiting at the red man until it changed to green, no matter how many other people crossed and regardless of if there was absolutely no traffic, at 3am, at all! That was me (with exaggeration to cover a 3am situation that wasn't actuality), and I never understood why no-one else ever followed the rule. (This is Asperger's life for you again.) In more recent years, now I've become, finally, aware of the social context, I know that, although there is technically in theory a "rule", which are told at school, of the Green Cross Code, that the world, in practice, does not operate according to that set of rules but, instead, the social rule, the unwritten one (is the Green Cross Code written?:think:) that operates in practice, is that you completely ignore anything about such a Green Cross Code and cross if there's no traffic to hit you regardless of what the lights are or are not showing. Come on, face it people, that's the true rule and the one that (it appears to me) is followed in practice! (Irregardless of whether it should be or not.)

It's the same as the practice on other things and something else, such as one example is swearing. You are taught not to swear ever at school by teachers*/ possibly parents/carers but the actual rule is that people swear all the time, are "abusive" or use as banter with people they know and just don't do it in people in front of strangers. Except that all people around me nowadays just do that anyway - the only thing they don't seem to do much is go up to the supermarket or bank cashier and yell swearing in their face! Otherwise, the "rule" certainly does not apply at all, certainly not in the theory way that my schoolteachers tried to maintain the pretence that it did and the rule, in practice, is very very different. As this Asperger came to realise only many years after almost everyone else:(:rotfl::doh:.

Anyway, I'm supposed not to know what banter is:rotfl::rotfl:.

(Meanwhile, as a result of the rule that doesn't apply that was originally set out to me, I can't physically bring myself to say certain words even in places in which everyone around me is doing so (and in which it is, therefore, socially acceptable whether or not some people may or may not agree with it) but I've suppressed myself so much, in compliance and pedantic following of the "rule" set out by my teachers, that I physically have a problem even voicing it - I wish this was not me - and, I believe, maybe interestingly, maybe not, I have lost friends over the years due to my inability to swear and my sounding rather pompous and formal rather than 'fitting in' by using the socially acceptable language between friends - I didn't realise any of this until the last decade or so: I sound odd and out of place, and I don't make friends for that reason.)

*Or at least you were in my day.

I too wait for the green man despite everyone else crossing. I was even beeped at by a motorist and a gesture of you can cross now was made. I just pointed at the red man.

I know what you mean about loosing friends over swearing, or rather not. I didn't fit in because I just couldn't bring myself to use double negatives like some of my friends. They interpreted this as me being posh!

Oh the good old school days

Tw1nb0ys

Right I really should go to bed or I'll never get up on time in the morning. Goodnight all.

Savvybuyer

Tw1nb0ys wrote: »

I too wait for the green man despite everyone else crossing. I was even beeped at by a motorist and a gesture of you can cross now was made. I just pointed at the red man.

I know what you mean about loosing friends over swearing, or rather not. I didn't fit in because I just couldn't bring myself to use double negatives like some of my friends. They interpreted this as me being posh!

Oh the good old school days

See, I'm right!:D I have figured it out for myself!:rotfl:

Not supposed to point at the red man apparently though! That's not the actual social rule (as opposed to the theory one that everyone pretends is the case when it's not). That's likely to have upset the driver. The rule is that, if you are flashed at by lights you can go - even though the Highway Code says the precise opposite. (However, there was a case where someone was, a very rare circumstance, actually using the flashing light to mean the same as the horn ("I am here") in accordance with the Highway Code - they were following the theoretical rule properly - the other motorist went, but there was a smash and the motorist who went, ignoring the signal of the other driver, was found to be at fault. The Highway Code is not law but a failure to comply may be taken as tending to indicate that the person was at fault and conversely compliance with it might be taken to suggest they were not.)

I had a lorry coming up at 40mph in the temporary 30 mph section of road (signed no fewer than three times throughout it). They were beeping their horn, flashing behind, very very close behind me. Does no good to point at the 30 mph speed limit signs and say that they are wrong, even though I was technically in the right. The 'rule' in practice is that you do 40mph regardless of what the signs say, except in a forty when you do fifty, and in a thirty you do forty, but in a fifty signed area you do forty:huh: (and in the last case, then start annoying me:mad::mad: Grrr!:rotfl:) That, apparently, is the actual rule in practice from my observations of how all motorists in general around me actually behave. It has no bearing on the theoretical written rule - or "law" - at all. However, I would not suggest that people reading this should follow the actual rule and break the speed limit. I am merely observing what the actual rule in practice, according to people's real behaviour, actually is. As usual, I don't fit in and I'm out of step again. And, no, it's not just a few other people: every single time I go through that 30 mph section, every vehicle immediately behind has always come up quite close behind me, as if to want to do 40 (or even more) and not a single other motorist yet has ever remained behind me at constant distance complying with the 30. It is how all people that do not have ASD behave, in my experience*. Indeed, I doubt that the existence of the speed limit signs ever strikes the normal person most times. They seem also to have a few seconds trouble recognising when traffic lights have changed to green. (I'm convinced that my brain picks that change out a split-second before most other people! And, I'm going... go:mad::mad:, now! Grrr:mad::rotfl:! Waiting an age(:mad:) until their brain finally recognises it!:T:rotfl:)

*In my view, the whole lot should be prosecuted, as every single motorist doing 40 in the 30 is in the wrong. In other words, every motorist except me. The whole, complete lot. However, when you have situations like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-30378801 - and then people don't actually get prosecuted because it's a trial period before enforcement (and then only as a last resort) actually begins - what's that all about:huh: - having a "rule", in practice, that the speed limit is completely and utterly irrelevant since it is not being enforced for a certain period - it's no wonder that, yet again, this society operates according to a different rule in practice than the stated, pretended, supposed rule that actually isn't the way things operate or therefore the socially acceptable way of behaving in practice apparently it seems. (It's all a big pretence with you people!:rotfl::rotfl: Yet again:rotfl:. Then you wonder why some of the Aspergers have a hard time trying to work it all out!:think: But then [Strike]we're[/Strike] I'm thinking about things such as this that virtually never even cross the mind of the normal person. Zzzzzz....:rotfl:That's because, I suspect, it's one of those issues that's boring to most people or really get a life and life's too short! More interested in celebrity culture and what's happening in the latest soap on TV, but I'm not saying that it is wrong to be interested in such things.)

That was back at the end of last year. Enforcement action came into force in January, it said. So, did that mean that, prior to that date, the signal is that the rule is that the speed limit is to be completely ignored and what message is that setting when it effectively says that situation?

"...[G]ive the public a time to... change their driving behaviour..." Why should "the public" be given any time to change their behaviour? They should be driving according to the legal speed limit (or, possibly, up to 10% above) from the very outset and completely throughout, so should therefore need no time to change at all!:mad: Would society in certain places, elsewhere, give the Asperger time to adapt to change like they afford, readily it seems, to the rest of society that seem ought to be able more readily to adjust to change?:rotfl: It's true isn't it?!?:rotfl::rotfl: Such a pointed barb, from me, that presses the nail right into the head yet again:rotfl:.

Savvybuyer

What are "average" speed cameras about anyway?!?:huh: Does that mean that you can drive through at 90 mph, as long as you do 10 mph at the other check point?!?

Alright, I get the point that speed limits are strict and that you might be found only a touch above the speed limit at one point and therefore an average is taken. Of course there is the 10% over before action is taken. Yet if it's a speed limit, you oughtn't to be exceeding it - aside from any minor temporary infraction by a very small amount I suspect.

Yet I'd be in total compliance, apparently, if I did 90mph at one check as long as at the other I did 10mph (and really annoyed every other motorist as well as recklessly putting my own life in danger on a motorway situation). Which must mean... it's therefore acceptable to drive at 90mph through the 50 (as you are within the average speed limit as long as your other figure is 10 - maybe it could be if you were caught in a traffic jam at that point?:think:)! (Of course it doesn't mean it's acceptable to drive at 90mph, I'm just taking it down that line of logic, or maybe lack of, to see where it leads.)

In fact, under the 'average speed', if you did the 'allowable' 10% over throughout, that would be in breach of the average speed?:question:?:think:

Savvybuyer

Claire1972 wrote: »

Oh I know I really need to up my game!!

I think you posted, and then posted the same post again but with an additional sentence. Yet the Mullers should have also worked vs Morries (or at least some of them) - does this mean they are picking up a more expensive price in error now on either (or both) of the Kellogg's snack bars? TIA.

Righto, that's it folks - I'd better go, and see you later!:wave: