Everybody Look! Intriguing Tiny Elves!

Savvybuyer

Anyway, I'll put this to bed now. It's as much qualifying as "censorship" as - I saw this in a local bowling alley the other week - they had the televisions set up, for the scores etc., but the screen wasn't displaying the picture properly and the subtitles at the bottom were slightly cut off, but you could still read what was written because the tops of the letters were just above the bottom of the screen. That's "censoring" something from me seeing it! And all it is "censoring" - inadvertently as this was just the television picture not being displayed properly - is the bottoms of the letters and how they are written, but I can still read and understand the full subtitle from the part that I see so it is hardly "censorship" at all. (It didn't cause me offence as there was nothing offensive written in the subtitles.) I thought about it that way, having had all these unpleasant experiences with over 130 separate radio versions over many years.

You may as well call that censorship if your TV picture doesn't show properly. Surely most of us, where we have TVs where pictures have been stretched out to cover the screen are probably missing the first and last pixels of each line. Is that being censored from us? Would we call that "censorship"? Hardly. It doesn't amount to censorship - except where it removes the original word and replaces it with a suggestion of some other word instead. Of course, all the "severe" swearwords in the original always come across no matter what they do to the soundtrack, short of blanking out entire phrases (and even then you are left wondering) or rewording the whole song, such as with Radiohead's "Creep" that I remained blissfully ignorant:T of ever containing swearing for over two decades. Thumbs up on that one - play that radio version in the gym, that is unproblematic.

EDIT: I've done censorship in this post haven't I? Up until now. I've written "TV" instead of "television". That is "censoring" the word "television". It's as useful, or as useless, as that. It does not matter: "TV" (whether you just think "TV" or think "television") and "television" mean the same thing. (I had an English teacher once, who objected to "TV" as they thought it was improper - so, maybe, it should be "television".)

Savvybuyer

purpledonkey wrote: »

Free B micellar wipes at Superdrug when you spend a fiver on selected skincare today only (for beauty card members). Not the most exciting deal but hope it helps someone!

http://www.superdrug.com/search?q=%3aname-asc%3asuperdrugGeneralPromotionText%3aFree+B.+Micellar+Wipes+when+you+spend+£5+on+selected+Skincare

So it's not "free" is it? You have to spend five quid to get it! And it is included in the cost of that.

I'm so glad I've got back to a MS topic:rotfl:.

If I don't spend a fiver on "selected" skincare (their selection as ever, not mine, although I can, arguably, "select" from within what they have selected), then I have to pay for the wipes - so they are not free there either! Assuming they can be bought separately. Of course hypothetical for me:rotfl::rotfl:.

vanilla_twist

Anon wrote: »

I don't think anyone answered me a few weeks ago (sorry if I missed it) - what is the cheapest way to get pods for Tassimo please, as I believe Father Christmas is bringing me one :cool:.

Many thanks

Anon

Mum found an online site a couple of months ago. Can't remember exact name don't think it was coffee direct but very close to it. If bought in bulk you could save at least £1 a box up to £2.50 a box on the very special deluxe pods. These savings were buying each type in packs of 5 boxes. As she uses a lot it is a huge saving and they do the decaf ones they like.
have a play online and if you can't find it I will ask tomorrow.
always best to buy single boxes in supermarket until you decide which ones you like as a few makes that fit.
occasionally you can get lucky in 99p shop.
HTh

V x

Savvybuyer

wendyak wrote: »

I also panicked about defrosting time so googled it and it should be water defrosted....steeped in water which is changed every hour for eight hours .....I'm giving it a go !!!!

I'm giving a go and then you may as well be saying the F-word (or, even, worse!):rotfl:. Bloody filters causing that, over time, now to happen:rotfl::rotfl:!

You can read it - it's there isn't it? I can see the word, in my mind. Thank you:( filters for using exclamation marks instead of the 'traditional' symbols so that, now, wherever, I see four exclamation points in a row, I can't not think of the word. Only fortunate that I don't always find it offensive. Sorry, I'll move on, it's stupid really!

EDIT: I know you wrote that out and didn't think of it like that. Do we really need to be careful now to avoid exclamations?:eek: I doubt it! Btw, I may as well be saying the F-word when I write "the F-word" - again, it's stupid, in fact I don't like that phrase myself now when I read other people writing it and sometimes find it quite annoying - and, therefore, yes the phrase now actually is potentially offensive. I'd rather people "swore" than wrote "the F-word" (although obviously not rather they swore in places in which it would have a physical impact on me, I'd have to be shouted I think in RL to do that)) as, when they write "the F-word" (that is the phrase "the F-word" and not the word that it means), it just has me thinking and pondering about that for much longer. It's stupid - I always write "!!!!" instead of "the F-word" - but, see, the filters won't let me do that! (Instead, they change to the worst one of all - the complete four symbol excuse for supposed-censorship whereby you work through a whole list of words rather than just the original one intended, only to reach the original one because of the context - except sometimes via much more severe in between before you finally get it - or else are left pondering over it for ages.)

Savvybuyer

Well, nice tp talk about some other than money-saving today:rotfl::rotfl:. Even if my choice of topic is the usual annoying (or for some people, maybe fascinating) one:rotfl:!

EDIT: I made a typo, but, oh, I'm going to leave it on this occasion. (As you know, I always correct things I write. Well, here's the exception.) See, what I've done there is "censor" the letter "o". I've written, albeit originally in error, "p" instead. But has that made any difference?

(I suppose it has - it may have annoyed someone who doesn't like bad spelling. But, all in all, it's the same - the message is clear and precisely the same. Some people may even have read it as "to" and not even noticed the mistake.)

EDIT 2: If not... well, actually, I look at it now and what it does to me is cause me, briefly, to go back over it and think of the correct word - so, in fact, it's like a "censored" version of a word - you just ponder over it more and, if it's offensive, then, with pondering and more thought, it's now more offensive in the form that caused it to linger for longer than even if the word had been said.

Savvybuyer

Just before I go off this, in fact speaking of Eminem, I did see one of his songs in the gym once, which very much shocked me, in with he was moving his arms up above his head and pointing in what seemed a very threatening manner at the same time as some very nasty phrase came across in my head from a complete several seconds of blanked material. It wasn't silence, there were 'words' I could hear in my head. Repeated swearwords.

I think it turned out - a decade later - that the original song was the lyric about drugs and he'd never even used any swearwords in that lyric of the song at all. The television version, with the pointing movements at the same time, and bearing in mind that I was not at a concert or in the cinema or at a comedy night but instead was with strangers a more open place such as a gym or supermarket, made it appear very threatening and I found it extremely offensive. Some of this may have to do with my own misinterpretation of body language. However, it did come across as if he was pointing and shouting and gesturing swearing at me. I know - it's a television. I'm 'safe' here as obviously he can't jump out of the television and physically assault me. However, I still found it very threatening.

If I did misunderstand, and it seems the original lyric too was nothing of the extreme short that I imagined, then that's no answer - offence is often caused by misunderstanding and it is the duty of others to try to avoid causing that in order that other people, such as me, can feel comfortable at watching things and not be caused extreme discomfort and offence.

(I wish I had known at the time that the original lyric was only about drugs. It should have been left in from my POV and, had it been so, I would never have been caused offence by it. I say "from my POV" as that is purely about offence, or none, to myself and does not take into account as to whether it is suitable or not for children who may be listening elsewhere. The 'problem' with the blanked versions is that there is nothing comforting or anything telling me that this is much less severe than what you imagine it is. I think I need it: I do need wrapping up in cotton wool and comforting. And the blanked versions don't do this at all, instead they do the precise opposite. Even now I know, I still wouldn't want the blanked version now, because of how it comes across. And other people might be thinking he meant something else than the original lyric. And it's what it might have meant, whether or not it actually does, that makes me uncomfortable. It's very complex, this issue of offence and avoiding people upset, as it's irrational emotion like this. Anyway, I wouldn't want any blanked out part at all, because of what it is associated with. And any reminder of that at all, when I'm in a place with strangers, upsets me.)

It's also no answer that I am "disabled" and have a disability in which I may perceive things a little differently. I am therefore, because of that, more "vulnerable" and therefore, as a person most easily likely to be caused offence, there is even more duty on others, and society, to protect me and ensure that I am not caused offence. This is proportionate to the legitimate aim of providing adequate protection, and the nature of the effect on myself has been such that the greater restriction is needed in order to ensure I am protected. Especially in places in which I do not access to an "off-switch", my own recourse is to leave to cause disruption to my own activities and not be able to get physical exercise and it is a place reasonably essential to attend in order to carry out lawful normal life activities. No other gyms play any other things and the same problem would arise whichever gym I went to (so I have no choice and I'm unable to go at all to any of them because of how offensive the material they play in all of them is - and inappropriate too when the lyrics are of some of the nature of what comes across).

In fact, the duty is on others to make reasonable adjustments and I am therefore entitled to more favourable treatment than anyone else.

I'm being totally selfish btw:rotfl::rotfl:! But well I might given the severe nature of the problem for me, the effect it had and the life-changing impact it's had on my life. I actually do regard it as disrespectful to broadcast this and any similar material to me in such a place as I don't wish to hear anything that makes me think of the certain words from it and it is wrong and disrespectful to continue to do so after complaint. So, I actually regard it as fundamentally wrong and infringing on my own rights personally. And when I think of it sometimes, it gets me so annoyed my heart starts uncontrollably racing. It's not doing so at the moment - but it does get annoying, seven years later. Although it does very slowly diminish with time.

Anyway, most of the time it is exactly what I thought it was, and the so-called explicit lyrics are never removed by it.

I think it's worse what you think people might mean sometimes rather than what they actually say. It brings to mind now the cut version of a film, in which, in the original, it was a load of hammer blows, bang, bang, bang, bang - and at the end of which the audience was laughing because it was so extreme. They cut it down because it was viewed as far too violent - and left it with one hammer blow. That caused the audience to be so much more shocked, because it was just a single blow and left them shocked.

Oh I could (clearly:rotfl:) go on about others, the repeated snide behaviour of Gwen Stefani that she is made by the alteration sounds to display in the radio version. It leaves the word which she doesn't say hanging in the air, like a bad smell, foul, perpetuating around, so much more offensive than if it had been said and just buried in the ground each time. I find the radio version extremely snide, that song.

Definition of "snide": offensive in an indirect way. So, they don't even get off the hook on that one with me. I'll just rationalising now: it did come across extremely snidely offensive and caused me actual offence. It's the way in which she suggests and the snide manner in which it sounds. I know it's not directed at me, as it's a song. However, I still find it offensive and uncomfortable when listening with other people, who, from the sound, will know what word it means and the radio version puts it into an offensive context. It adds a ring of annoyance to the tone of the sound, whilst communicating in this repeated snide manner something that is, clearly, in that form, offensive. I would not have anyone in normal life behaving around me like that - I would tell them off - and I do not want to have Gwen Stefani in a social context when I am with strangers around me, all of whom could see and hear it, effectively behaving like that which causes me annoyance on top and offence.

vanilla_twist

silvercar wrote: »

I am sat here with foils around each nail, trying to removed gelled nails. There are resistant clumps. I bought myself a gel lamp in the Boots offer thinking it was money saving. The application was fine, the removal is time wasting.

Can't go out with clumpy nails!

You need a shallow bowl filled with quite hot water, into that put 2 little bowls filled with acetone (not acetone free) nail polish remover. Every 5 minutes remove hands and gently rub then file gluey bits off.
takes a he'll of a lot of patients to get them completely back to normal but smooth enough to paint normally should be achievable.
never pick off. Those filing blocks with 4 different strengths of file are very good at getting shine back.

HTh

V x

Feeling very nicely relaxed in hotel room now I think I might watch a film on tablet and make the most of it.

vanilla_twist

hornetgirl wrote: »

Are you using acetone remover? I've given up with gels now as the removal leaves my nails in such a poor state. I've started using Barry M Gelly polish instead. It doesn't last as long as real gels but is much more durable than regular nail polish.

I now have sns nails done at salon. They paint coat of something then dip actual nail in coloured powder then repeat 3 times before buffing. Easily get 3-4 weeks before replacing. Most natural nails I have had so far and as colour is in the powder it can't chip or rub off the ends.

V x

Savvybuyer

queen_of_cheap wrote: »

I've just got up and made a whole new set of lists

There is 3 pages of list - how much veg to prep, what I need to do tomorrow and which room needs what doing to it

Do I feel better having done it? Yes I do because my mind isn't racing so much now, and no because it seems like I still have loads to do, even though I probably don't, it just looks like it :rotfl:

Sounds like my Morrisons list:rotfl:.

Actually, that was my little Lidl list - the Morries one is usually about 14 sides (and that's of small text):rotfl::rotfl::eek:!:rotfl:

I shan't be doing another Lidl list - I still have a bit from the Morrisons collection I did now yesterday to put onto the list there maybe but, really, it's as usable as it stands - to be fair it might be Cow & Gate 4x100g meals at 3 for £3, fwiw, don't know whether that mbuy might be picked up, a biscuit here (Vinnies 365g at £2:eek::rotfl:), Nestle Munchies tube (300g) at £2:eek:_pale_(:laugh:) and the 36 pack frozen Chicken Dippers didn't make the list - outside of weight range from the nearest A product it appears - and at 3 for £5 but 42 pack BE Dippers went down to £2 in T earlier in the year.

There's lots of different 10-pack Christmas Cards on 50p in M, but does anyone really want me to put them onto the list? In fact, the 24 pack cards at £1 would, of course, technically be cheaper - but, even then... I think after Christmas is the way!:rotfl::rotfl:

I shan't be doing a new Lidl list, because it's... happy Christmas!:D:xmastree:

:easter_ba (no that's the wrong one:rotfl::rotfl:).

vanilla_twist

purpledonkey wrote: »

*suddenly develops a cough*

Pd and Emma pop off to Westfield when I have dwell vouchers. Not as good now can only use one per shop but I believe plenty of cakes cases make it worth the trip.
Funny I was thinking about Dwell the other day as not had these this year and use to be twice a year. Their teat oils make lovely wall art for kitchen stapled round a wooden square.

V X