The Elite Money Saving Society

fairclaire

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I posted a recipe for tomato and pepper chutney a couple of days ago, it is seriously nice:D

Oh made some chutney with the last lot. The kids are not too keen on chutney so I don't want too much if it. It's my own fault for going overboard with tomato plants I seriously need to plant a lot less next year.
I've just had some spring bulbs delivered from Thomson and Morgan as well. Lots of them where am I going to plant the 100 free crocus bulbs that came with the order? :cool:

fairclaire

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I know - bloody on my mind all the time:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. Look, you know I speak my mind (as long as allowed to do so!). Indeed, "better out than in" although in a different sense not this one now.

Well you can speak your mind here and no one will mind. I find it all very interesting as you know and reading about the way you feel helps my own insight into some things.
The only thing I mind right now is being kept from my garden so I will catch up with the rest of your posts later
I know you keep saying you are going.......but you won't until you're finished :rotfl:

henrik777

braveheart60uk wrote: »

New printable vouchers on Tosco website
http://www.tesco.com/clubcard/coupons/

50p off Yazoo milk drinks – 4 x 200ml 4 packs £1.60, £1.30 Sada

Chocolate and Strawberry 55p sloppyties.

Savvybuyer

justmaz wrote: »

Savvy I hope you don't mind me asking but I have just read your last three posts and would like to understand a little more. [1] If this will cause you any offence please just skip this post because I don't mean it to. I just listened to the two song links that you posted and to be honest I found them very irritating, not for the same reason as you but just because I can't understand that type of sound being referred to as music :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Anyway, I digress, [2] is it that you find the inference of the words offensive whilst you are in company or is it offensive even if you are listening to it whilst alone?[/QUOTE]

[1] Absolutely no problem.

People - skip this post if you don't want the discussion, thanks!

[2] Complicated. So many different variants in different situations as impossible to explain - and has changed over time (i.e. Version 2 - offensive if played on radio, in the sense of mild heart sink at one use of the word, twenty years ago, totally inoffensive if it came on the radio at night now (it doesn't though), inoffensive twenty years ago and today when played on CD and entirely alone. Version 1: was always okay entirely alone, indeed inoffensive on radio twenty years ago (words have been used a lot more since so are now sometimes less offensive), now Version 1, normally okay when entirely alone, although odd occasions it provokes a PTSD if I start thinking about the gym and how it might have been if it had been played there - this is a more recent song so has not been whilst I've been there - unable to physically go to any gym for over 5 years - that's how disruptive and affective to my life it's been).

Really, I don't see this is any different to if an elderly lady on the street were regularly and repeated abused by kids and anti-social behaviour. Lady goes out to the shop down the road and every time the youths approach her and swear at her. That would be prosecuted possibly, if she went to the police, and action taken. It's exactly the same thing to me, in terms of its effect, even if not directed at me (and the alteration admits that the actual words could be offensive even if not directed at someone) and has, indeed, caused me harassment, alarm and distress to be subjected to constant exhibiting of offensive material, that has caused me on every occasion serious offence, as part of a place reasonably necessary and essential to visit as part of attempts to carry out reasonable and normal life activities. Fwiw, it fits the definition of "patently offensive" as set out by the American FCC. I know we're not in America but, still, in my view, a valid point. And, oh yes, I have loads of points:rotfl::rotfl:.

Regarding the song, there are songs that annoy me or "rationally offend" me in that sense, although I do not complain about them because not the same as offence. Usually a lot of these pop songs in the last twenty years that sound outside of my hearing range. I find all contemporary pop music - particularly autotune - irritating. I can, nowadays, see why you can't understand that type of sound as I suspect my current tastes are completely out of hearing range of most people (and I do like both versions of this song when heard totally alone, except if 1 causes me PTSD which I hope it doesn't - exposure is a "solution" but still not nice to trigger and can't then control the heartracing etc. so maybe I should avoid 1 and listen solely to 2 in safety of own home).

I mean - and this isn't meant to be derogatory - if people have generally been listening to such awful rubbish (IMO) for the last twenty years, I'm not surprised their brains have become used to it (mine never got used to it) that any other (non-mainstream? - I've no clue, I've no idea whether ASAP Rocky is mainstream or not - I do not listen to the radio voluntarily these days) sound will sound totally weird. To me, all the pop music sounds weird and fast hardcore is normal and calm.

It's not even inference of words - the material (Version 1 too) is totally clear. It sounds like the word.

Can't listen to Version 1 with anyone around (causes me offence). Version 2 - I could probably manage it with my father, if it came on television (it does not) probably post 9pm but not even sure - that said Snoop Dogg's Live 8 session on daytime many years ago - father and mother present - caused me no offence and managed to set off my brother into the largest amount of laughing I've ever seen - I think the fact it was going out before the watershed intensified that. Version 2 probably no offence if came on broadcasting even with father around - now live away from him and not with any older generations - so, yayyy, a lot on TV in my home at all hours (apart from triggering "censored" material now - it's supposed to protect me) is now totally inoffensive to me. Grandmother doesn't visit - well, if she did, then maybe wouldn't have some programmes on. If Version 2 were to come onto television, selected by the broadcasters, I'd be okay but, bizarrely, I don't feel able to get out the actual CD and play it if my father is around as then it seems "like it's coming from me". Version 1 I have to keep under lock and key and never play at all with company (bizarre I know - it's actually more restricted for me as to the circumstances in which I can safely play it, i.e. without causing myself discomfort offence - and that, more problematic version is the one of the type that radio will play at will).

I don't think it's any more acceptable than Version 2 (in places where that would, if played - it never has been - cause me offence). In theory, it's no different to saying the words - and I note this is consistent with 2010 research from the BBC Trust which found that only the 1% of people most likely to be caused offence by language felt that there was no difference between the bleeped and unbleeped version. I'm in that 1%, of regularly offended people whom, therefore, are the very ones in need of the most protection. I wouldn't say ban bleeping (sometimes it can be funnier for some) but it couldn't be warned about either - as a warning itself of "bleeped strong language" would also be a trigger, there is therefore no way safely to refer to it, and indeed it would embarrass me to be warned about such a thing and have to switch it off - and I couldn't do so anyway without embarrassment if I was around other people and therefore making the problem clear.

If I really was caused offence by actual what they call "strong" language, even though it is not, after 9pm - I never am - then I would find a warning message to be embarrassing if I was with others as I'd have to switch the channel (and, believe it or not, there are some people even in 2015 who do change channels as a result - as someone else on the web says they find this whole idea that someone actually would switch channels on being warned, for fear of hearing a swear, highly amusing and yayy, the 1970s are still alive:rotfl:).

I'm in the 1%, to some extent, although actually I'm in a different group - it's not no difference between the words and the bleeped version, instead the bleeped (or rather that non-bleeped 'censored') versions are not no difference, instead there is difference since the "censored" versions are different because they are worse. They draw my attention, they point out the problem, etc. etc.

Sorry - I hope I covered every eventuality that you asked about. Again:rotfl:.

HILLBERN

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I think I'll say get your bottom (I think that's what I'll say:rotfl:) off the fence!

Sorry, didn't mean to quote the same post a second time and come up with a second point. Nonetheless - anyway, it's done, so deal with it (yes I should also take my own advice, although easier said than done with emotion sometimes).

:rotfl::wave:

Bottom of the fence

Savvybuyer

fairclaire wrote: »

Well you can speak your mind here and no one will mind. I find it all very interesting as you know and reading about the way you feel helps my own insight into some things.
The only thing I mind right now is being kept from my garden so I will catch up with the rest of your posts later
I know you keep saying you are going.......but you won't until you're finished :rotfl:

No I can't. I'm not allowed to use (well I won't even give initial letter as that's virtually the same thing - so I leave it worse and have you wondering and wondering. To clarify - and sorry for the offence of being specific - word in the song title I referred to earlier).

Again, the easily offended (such as myself maybe:rotfl:), to skip:

Clarification - it's not that I necessarily want to use such a word, even though to me it would be less offensive than an asterisked or dashed version that people may (or may not, depending on context) be allowed to use, that the website, in common with other places, assumes is more acceptable but is not, and I may even find reading the actual word funny sometimes (I acknowledge other people would feel totally differently, and would not want this place to be "littered" as they see it by such language which they see as "swearing" and it debase, in their view, the forum - although I do not understand how it lowers or highers any "tone" or anything). But all I'm saying is the truth that I am not able to speak my mind literally. That's all. So, FC, your outset assertion is not true. That's all I'm saying and nothing more here. Dashed versions now merely provide reminders and reinforcements of an offence that for me, nowadays, without them, would otherwise not be. I think the whole approach should be abandoned. Indeed, I think society should abandon the whole concept of words being swearwords at all and then I could have lived totally free from offence. It relates to my childhood and words created then by my parents and teachers (society) as swearing, which presumably is why the physical impact of racially offensive language which, whilst never acceptable, was not given a physical impact for me as a child, when my parents etc. inadvertently and merely following in accordance with society, made some words extremely bad for me (by saying they weren't bad but calling them "swearwords" which made them very very bad indeed, whilst also in certain circumstances amusing and funny (and therefore 'good', though I did not outright think of that at the time)), words to which an emotional effect (skin conductance test: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/03/research-demonstrates-language-affects-behaviour) is given as a result of my social conditioning and learned behaviour. The very first time I hear a swear, aged 4, it wasn't offensive to me: I "knew" it was something that sounded a little strange and I asked my parents (without being specific): they told me it was swearing and the very second use I ever heard in my life, and lots of subsequent ones, caused me severe upset.

I don't mean to be controversial. That's just my considered view (and it has been considered, in absolute depth (possibly to the chagrin and annoyance of others here to find that out)). I am, as ever, a provocative read and with unusual (and interesting therefore) things to say. I think the term "bad" language in that Guardian article is very arcane and archaic, although it is bad when it (or something related to it) causes offence and PTSD. I am an odd person: I cannot even physically bring myself to say these words even in circumstances where everyone around me (friends) is doing so*, acceptably to me. I'd said things on this forum that I find impossible actually to say in normal life.

*This is interesting, as relates to formal speech, pedantry and prosody of Aspergers. Whereas for NTs, swearing is natural and it just slips out without thinking (again. no problem to me) and suppressing yourself is not, for me I suspect everything does go through my "maths problem" part of my brain before I say it. For the NT, it comes from a different part of the brain and does not have to be processed since. Which is why Ofcom and the BBC Trust saying Lily Allen must not actually swear in daytime concerts - and sticking up notices in changing rooms advising performers not to swear - will IMO have absolutely no effect whatsoever, as NTs (presumably Lily Allen etc.) do not think about everything before they say it and in a natural performance etc. Besides I doubt the notices would ever be read by most NTs even if they put them up. We shall see - I think, for those reasons, the action Radio 1 took after that concert will be ineffective.

Myself, I actually recall I did hear part of that concert. I was in Mr A's carpark in fact, when a taxi suddenly pulled up and the door opened just in time for Lily Allen and "the F-word" (sorry for any offence) to go out. I remember I walked around the corner and laughed my head off! Sorry (I'm not really) but I did. Ofcom spoilsports:rotfl:. (No I can see "the children" etc. Those who know it from the age of 1.)

In fact, a little mischievously (as if ever I have not been already), I think they should ban the word "yes" from daytime television. Because, if an adult were to ask a child "do I look fat in this dress?" and were the child to reply "yes", that might cause offence and inappropriate. Therefore, the word should be banned (I jest a little) since "children might pick it up and imitate it in circumstances in which it is inappropriate". Why is that any different?

Indeed, the word "no" should also be banned (I might then hear the censorship as a severe swearword instead due to contextual conditioning and nowadays be caused a trigger), for if a child was asked "Do I look good in this dress?", the word "no" in reply might cause offence. Indeed, an emphatic "no" response from a child to a lot of questions that a parent or teacher might ask might not be appropriate. And also the word "fire" should go: they might copy it and shout it across a theatre auditorium in darkness. Inappropriate too:rotfl: - what else?

I suspect I might think differently if I were to be a parent. Somehow, I'm told, it all becomes different. In a way I wish I was a parent, for my arguments then would suddenly be given greater credibility and suddenly rise in being given greater status, I assume by non-autistic people. Oh so true isn't it? Not a false word spoken. Do you perceive me differently? Because I'm a non-parent. People generally, it appears to me, just can't let certain things avoid influencing their judgements in different ways one way or another. They're less able (but not unable) to step back and take a look at their society as an alien. Indeed, they don't think about it much. Well, as an Asperger "alien", landed on the "wrong planet", I can see it all! And that's my view. Other Aspergers may have different views and others of them may not think about it at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29691358
Utterly ridiculous!:rotfl::rotfl: What a ridiculous idea, passed on from generation to generation, that words are swearwords. It's partially a matter of opinion anyway, as different people have different views (although some words status or otherwise is more generally accepted than others). I could say there's no "swearing" but there is "offensive language" or offensive material. Clearly there is - as certain things do give emotional reactions. But, then, if swearing is defined as "that which may produce an emotional reaction", then it may be covered by that. It relates, for me, trying to rationalise and understand why certain things cause me offence, to things that were created as such in my childhood and the strength that they were created as (the "general ordering of the words") back then. I know how things affect me - or could do. But, as for "swearing", I've no idea really, beyond reasonable doubt, what that is as different people in research exercises have different opinions. But then I don't believe any "research" result any more as all opinion polls, even if thoroughly consistent with each other, can be completely inaccurate. Nor do I accept that! I don't accept without evidence:rotfl:. Yet I seem to "accept" what was given to me, with best intent but completely harmfully (in accordance with society's way of doing things), as a very young child (most harmful stage of development of all to leave someone then with problems way into their adulthood and for the rest of their life probably) and somehow things make me uncomfortable in certain places because of that. It's the existence of the taboo and the meaning. And the taboo that I have on referring to the taboo, as that itself tells me of the taboo and reminds me of it - I do not want the taboo or the thought of swearwords to be "discussed" or referred to in that place at all - even though lol Im discussing the very same thing here at length:rotfl: - I know, but difference is I felt comfortable as it's not real life.

And yes, finally, I do support the "policy" stated here:
http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/253/referencing-the-existence-of-words-that-may-be-offensive

I find the "discussion" of the words in the public place to itself be unwelcome and offensive and do not wish any reference or "discussion" of it, and altered sound or blank space material amounts to being a discussion. I don't wish to experience the constant dropping of the specific words onto me, and that's exactly what these "clean" version that aren't do. Showering me with unacceptable swearing (in an inappropriate, unacceptable place of environment) constantly and providing no respite to be able to avoid it - every gym session, at least one such song. Had it been once every five years it may have been tolerable. But, no, every time, every session - and even a single use (especially now I'm thoroughly fed up with it all and beyond) will now harass and provoke my reaction to it. The more and more it is done, the more unacceptable the behaviour. Just like harassment. I do find it harassing - and the creation of "an offensive and hostile" environment which, although not my workplace and if it was maybe I could have done something about it under sexual harassment law, is still someone else's workplace and they are strangers to me. If we go further, it's now well fallen off the "euphemism treadmill" for me, it never was in the first place, and now become so associated and contaminated material as to be as offensive as (and more), or not, than the unaltered material.

Finally, finally, yes I really have been researching around, I note the person here - https://www.reddit.com/r/music/comments/2v73l1/spotify_should_have_a_setting_to_remove_all_clean/ - who says they were glad to find a "clean" version of an artist called Watsky because at least it would mean their customers wouldn't be complaining that the words were being dropped onto them - well, they should count themselves lucky that I don't go into their business premises because I would be complaining that the "clean" versions is doing precisely that to me, and indeed is doing even more forcefully as it's impacting the very words onto the mind and pressing them right down into me, so much more bothersome. Please can you stop dropping it onto me!

Sorry I have gone on here at the end - not to let this arouse my passion so annoyingly:rotfl:.

(It's nothing about whether it was 'intended to be' or artist's original intention etc. or about it "ruining" songs - it does not necessarily do so - indeed, in certain limited circumstances I find the "clean" versions more exciting because they have a taboo element to them and because they make them imply so much more filthy, part of the very problem in other environments. They do not have freedom of expression and indeed the (failed attempt at) 'censorship' is evidence of as much. Indeed, I do not want freedom of expression (which includes "expression" by behaviour such as pausing as well as by actual speech) - we do not have free speech in this country, I do not believe in it, and it is always restricted by the protection of the rights of others, including protection for their health - I do not believe in freedom of expression in any case in which that expression causes me emotional offence and I do believe that it should be censored and kept away from me and the whole things banned. They should therefore censor, for example, by saying "very fantastic" so that I could never tell, from the material itself, that there was ever any original offensive language in the first place. And, yes, as an Asperger, I notice the finest detail so even the most minor "edit", which is in any way audible, bothers me - indeed the more fine and detailed the more it stands out. If there is even the most minor discordancy in a song, I will notice and it will bring the word to my mind and upset me. But I do believe that people should have absolute freedom of expression, as long as not provoking violence or criminal behaviour (ahh!! Always a caveat:(:rotfl:), in all circumstances in which they cause me no offence at all, so see no need to "censor" songs on late-night radio, which they do, which I hear alone - indeed, the "censored" version, if I happened to be elsewhere and my dad come in (like he does) and fiddle around with the radio, would cause me offence in that circumstance - but fortunately this situation has never yet happened, whilst if it were (nowadays) the uncensored versions, just like a movie, bizarrely perhaps but it's emotion and not logic, I would not be too bothered. It's that "disguised" nature which it really isn't which makes it uncomfortable (when hearing with others). I've never been able to discuss this with my father because too uncomfortable.

As regards printed asterisking, that does not make me uncomfortable because I read and see that alone (other people aren't looking at it with me - and anyway the concept of joint attention never really caught off on this Asperger:rotfl:) and I guess it's only not offensive because the actual concept of the word itself would not, in that place, cause me offence, otherwise if it did, then I would be caused offence by the asterisked version too (and possibly more so nowadays as it provides a more firm reminder) - I do go near offended at seeing asterisked versions of racial language these days whilst I acknowledge there are others who think the unasterisked word should never ever be printed. The unasterisked word does not bother me - but, again, it's all context and if a racist were to send me a letter and do that then I probably would be caused offence by it - I won't use initial letters here as that bothers me, so there is no way of referring without referring, but I mean that words offensive against black or African Carribean people would offend me as a white person. Yours sincerely, hardcore gangsta rap fan (who can't stomach same thing some places of listening, even or especially in another form).

But I have spoken my mind fully here, as I was able to!
Alright, wayyy too much, and I'm leaving for - still the afternoon:eek: - now! Thank goodness still the afternoon, in a way. Hope it's well where you are.

:wave::wave: (for now.) Sorry, no money-saving, but I have done plenty of that (overmuch arguably) in the past here and again sometime.

DeeDee74

Ok I hunted high & low for these but sadly I couldn't find them but the lovely Bubbs found some & tested so hopefully these will compare £13.98 v £6 T's

Red box Tresemme keratin 7day smooth heat active.£6.99 each or 2 for £6

Thank you bubb for testing hopefully they will work & give £8.58 apg on £6 spend.:T:T

Mumto2monkeys

DeeDee74 wrote: »

Ok I hunted high & low for these but sadly I couldn't find them but the lovely Bubbs found some & tested so hopefully these will compare £13.98 v £6 T's

Red box Tresemme keratin 7day smooth heat active.£6.99 each or 2 for £6

Thank you bubb for testing hopefully they will work & give £8.58 apg on £6 spend.:T:T

These are showing as £3 each online :think:
Wonder if the price instore is about to change to that??

tweets

Good Afternoon

Poppy was all waggy tail and did the waggy bum dance when I got home from work she is such a love

DeeDee74

Mumto2monkeys wrote: »

These are showing as £3 each online :think:
Wonder if the price instore is about to change to that??

No I believe they were £3 roll bk now multi.new price is £6.99