Everybody Look! Intriguing Tiny Elves!

mrs-moneypenny

Morning all
Happy Christmas Eve everyone
miss_corerupted Sorry to read about your fence
My Dh has just gone to pick ds1 and a couple of mates up from a party, so nipped on to crack a couple of things and thought I'd say hello.

Just got veg to buy today but will get it from local market stall guy.

Hope everyone has a good Christmas

vanilla_twist

I remember shopping after finishing work at the nightclub at 3 am the first years they opened all night.

Please remember ladies as my old dad use to say 'it's just a roast and you do that every sunday'. :rotfl::rotfl:::rotfl:

I jest I am doing Mary berry next year

V x

Savvybuyer

I think the point about disrespect is that - and I know I caused upset to someone earlier and apologised for it - if, having known that you caused upset, you then repeat the type of behaviour causes someone upset, then you are being completely out of order and disrespectful.

Which is precisely what the situation has been with me and the radio stations and broadcasters complete disregard for me and my feelings. That, I would indeed think, is disrespectful. Completely and utterly. And anyone else did that in normal life - they might even face prosecution for abusive behaviour in a public place. But this doesn't fall under that law.

It matters not that it is organisations rather than individual people. It is the same effect and the same thing. And organisations' activities are carried out by the actions of human beings. It's also an active choice to choose to air some recorded material which, as it is recorded in advance, therefore carries no defence as it could be listened to in advance and there is no need to play something that is known to cause someone offence and known to be likely to reach them. Especially when my objection has related to things that I can't avoid in normal life activities which are justified for me to have been carrying out and I do not go to a gym to hear offensive material (as opposed to material that I merely 'don't really like') and do not wish to do so. It's also disrespectful as against my wishes therefore, and contrary to the dictionary definition of "respect". However, I guess I should stop burying my head in dictionaries:rotfl:. It just arouses my strong emotions and feelings and I feel even more strongly upset when it does so - and therefore continues and perpetuates and recommits the offence and has not been resolved in any satisfactory way for me.

There is no argument. It is not a matter for dispute and opinion. It is, as a matter of fact not opinion, offensive material in that place for me as it does in fact cause me to experience extreme discomfort and bad emotional reaction that amounts to, as a matter of fact, actual causing of offence. It's not an opinion, it's something I have really experienced. It's not deniable. (Well, it is deniable, as anything can be denied, but the denial is untrue.) I've shown clinical symptoms over time of depression (several years back now as it's now several years on), caused as a result, and that is not arguable with but is a matter that can be scientifically and objectively assessed.

Savvybuyer

Ampdewd wrote: »

Hello. Do we know if A has got rid of the new APG system? Or have I found one of a few stores that hasn't implemented it yet? The SS checkout in a different store I used today insisted I scanned the small barcode at the top, before calling the SS assistant like it used to, and it appears as Manufacturers Coupon rather than APG on the receipt. Took me by surprise, but I hadn't set foot in A for a fortnight.

It changes every time for me. SS was fine the time before, now it didn't scan at all for me. They changed the BC at the bottom to make it bigger. However, that wouldn't scan. I've no idea if this is just the specific SS machine I happened to use that day or whether this is a temporary glitch that is going to be resolved once again. (I was told by SA at SS that they've changed the system. However, I think this was a cross-purposes miscommunication as she mentioned you now have to scan your receipt. The original APG BC didn't scan, no matter what I tried. I didn't reach the receipt stage. I think she was just talking about what we already knew rather than any comment in relation to some very latest change that had happened only that day.)

It's haphazard: it bears no relation as far as what I can see, as to the voucher value, or to whether it's glitchy or non-glitchy.

I went through staffed till once - though actually :TSA managed something I never did. She got the 'scan other barcode' message, then managed to reset the system and managed to get it to scan properly! "Never had that before", I commented. "It was probably just luck," she said! Anyway, we were both laughing at it after that. I had the last one work, then the next staffed till on a later day, back to the old supervisor approval again:mad::rotfl:.

Savvybuyer

It's not logical and rational or about what "should" be offensive, but about emotion and somewhat haphazard. I can't feel uncomfortable about something if I feel comfortable, and, equally, if I feel uncomfortable, I feel uncomfortable and it can't be helped - or can only be helped to a limited extent by your own feelings and attempts not to be uncomfortable, but then something will come in, such as the annoyance in the case of the Scissor Sisters radio edit, that slightly gets you and causes you to tip right down uncontrollably. It's no good then moments later annoying me at one of my weakest points (in other words when you're already gone towards causing offence to me - in that sense, the uncensored version and censored version, at the actual material, whether it was the actual word or the replacement material, both had, initially, the very same effect on me (same meaning) - but it was the annoying sound that I thought about a few seconds afterwards that tipped me under and into real extreme offence together with my unhappiness at how it stood out and made it problematic and its hidden nature etc. that really isn't and therefore everyone around me would know which word that meant and that's problematic to me and the disguised nature, which really in truth isn't, is part of the offence).

https://philosophynow.org/issues/12/Emotions_A_Defence_of_Irrationality

You can read about the third example: the stuffed tiger and how, even after he knows it is, he still feels frightened by it - and how he even realises his own fright at that point is irrational.

So it doesn't even have to be coherent or rational and yet may still be some offence I experience. I don't have to have a coherent explanation for it - though I can try to (and boy have I done so, obsessively and sometimes to my own upset) rationalise it and I've gone back to my childhood and how things were created as bad for me and created something that sometimes is uncomfortable for me ever since. I think, nowadays, the asterisks just reinforce and perpetuate an offence that would no longer exist; they used to protect me as a child, even though I knew what it meant but it told me it is swearing (and therefore a 'good' thing did that) and it wasn't acceptable, though when I first saw the word unasterisked in print I suffered a very minor heart sink. I quickly recovered back then though. And now I see it in print unasterisked every day and it never bothers me. Now it's the asterisked versions and the like that far annoy me and sometimes take me back and remind me of when a child in my playground swore at me and I cried my eyes out. I wish they'd move on from it, tbh, and not do something that reminds me and perpetuates it as offensive and takes me back to the time when the actual word really was. Now I hear it every day, by every stranger that I pass who ever speaks at all in public, and none of it ever bothers me. Maybe I am overhearing:rotfl:. The autistic person hears everything. Someimes I find what they've said funny. So please don't control your language around me in RL!

I draw the line at things that cause me actual offence though. And for me, I can watch graphic shootings, beatings, murder and the like in horror films and be caused no problem, and can even see that child on the beach that distressed everyone else, and suffer no distress whatsoever from that image (maybe sadly), and yet, not in horror films at all - I'm fine and also completely okay at the cinema - except that one occasion - actually it's 12 rated material that bothers me, I've no problems with 18 material - but it's little words that affect me, although not on television in my home in uncensored form now regardless of time of day.

Bleeping is normally fine (but not in public places) but they uphold complaints about bleeping sometimes. They now require it to be completely covered - which is actually worse because it now doesn't have the impact if you can't hear any of it, instead just makes it no impact of amusement potentially but more likely offence without amusement to remove it. And it still doesn't work as I will still know! It's like printing seven complete asterisks in the middle of a phrase. You still know what that means and it's still ineffective in that sense. They need to censor it far more - it's no good censoring every single letter, they need to remove far more. Yet of course that's impossible to do as it has been censored the most they can. Still doesn't work and still potentially offensive! Especially if, or when, a black block is then shown over the mouth problematically simultaneous. It's not even necessarily about hearing something or necessarily how something sounds. It's the meaning and what people around me might, to my own feeling, know.

Then they'll bleep some things but leave more severe words in unbleeped and thus set up the conundrum of why one was but not the other and just have me thinking about it even more:(. I then don't even get what the rest of the programme is about. And, anyway, even assuming that they were correct, which I dispute, the word that was bleeped, which was less severe (how could I tell?) was still clear as to its meaning, despite the bleeping, so, if they are right in their own assumption that it's offensive, that made them bleep it, then it's still offensive and the bleeped version of it was inappropriate and should not have been transmitted. And neither should the more severe word unbleeped. Wrong on both counts. When I see a programme completely unbleeped, obviously it's after 9pm, I don't even bother about the language in it at all.

The ones with complete 'silence' are some of the worst though. As there is no sound there to block out my thought. I would rather have a loud bleep sound so that something could distract from and try to cover up some of my thought. Now though I always associate it and think of it - this one, they make it sound like the F-word when it was 'only' a less severe word which, fortunately, I know from the rest of story and their useless asterisking. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carrie-fisher-swearing-live-telecast-star-wars_567048e1e4b0e292150f50e8 Fortunately in the context of watching at home and in the context of an article that makes clear what it actually is, that is alright, but if I were to hear that video elsewhere I probably would be caused more severe offence because of the way it sounds or comes across and, even though I now already know what she said, sometimes I may forget when I see something at some later point or it still sounds like something else and it is the way in which that comes across and has made it more severe. On one song, even after I knew the word was the word "weed" in the uncensored version, I could still 'hear' the swearing in the altered sound version (that was never present in the uncensored version and shouldn't be present in the altered version as it has cut out merely the word "weed") but they make it sound like !!!!!! truncated (since this website doesn't like the actual word:p:rotfl::rotfl:) and it still sounds like that word even after I know. Which is, sometimes, why I like the [Strike]clean[/Strike] dirty versions that they claim to be clean more sometimes. But obviously not when other people are hearing them with me.

remote90

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Really? It's a glitch!:) If that's the Carlsberg 20 pack that has really been £12 in M.

£12v£8:j:T.

Great...I didn't know it was a glitch...I just assumed it really was £8 at Morries. I went back and got a couple more last night. Worked perfectly. So £7.20 after APG. (36p per can)

Savvybuyer

remote90 wrote: »

Great...I didn't know it was a glitch...I just assumed it really was £8 at Morries. I went back and got a couple more last night. Worked perfectly. So £7.20 after APG. (36p per can)

This had better be Carlsberg 20x440ml and not 20x330ml or whatever:rotfl::rotfl::D. I don't even know about any other can size - if there is, it's pricing is never normally good enough! Don't like being shortchanged by over 100ml per can - if it's the same straight price, it does increase the price per l. quite a lot! So, as usual, beware! They sometimes have 20x330ml cans packs, and the like, at £10 but obviously that price is one for the gullible as only they would pick up such a can size pack in the light of the same version of alcohol being available in other bigger cans, maybe at other times, for the same price. (It's why not all 20 pack alcohols at £10 in M make it to my list - if Stella 20x284ml (or whatever it is - it probably is exactly that as I have a good memory:rotfl:) goes to £10 it never gets any mention, whereas if Stella 20x440ml (probably 18x440ml now:() does, then it does. If Stella 20xthe smaller cans ever goes to £10, do not buy it as it is a rip-off IMO. (Unless of course you are comparing against a really cheaper price elsewhere, which is highly unlikely - I tend to think this item serves much as a confusion item rather than to give people good value. If it is 284ml per can, then really it's price should be about £6.45! It never is that cheap. And that's based on £10 for the 20x440ml price, but given that T went to £4 in one store on a RTC pack, maybe even that is way too high now. We're then looking for a shade over £2.50 for a 20x284ml pack - best of luck on that one, I think it unlikely!)

:think:I think some of this - and of course I've mentioned it before - is there to cause some people confusion and have them picking up and paying the store the same for a smaller pack. This is proportionately charging them more, and of course it serves the manufacturers and stores' interests. So I've seen 500ml Robinsons at 74p, coincidentally the very same price that the 1L Robinsons (usually at 'good' (i.e. not glitch) price) go to - perhaps in order to try to confuse some people - bearing in mind most shoppers have only a few seconds in a shopping basket to pick each item - and have them getting half the amount for the same price. Put a higher piece on the 500ml for a few weeks, e.g. £1, then reduce to 74p and. as the store, you're on the winner!:rotfl: (You can now say was £1 now 74p and have people thinking it's an offer. Never mind that the cost ought to be half of 74p.)

Savvybuyer

I can't see anything relevant other than Carlsberg 20x440ml online. This is really £12 and 2 for £20 in M - don't know where they are getting £8 from. Unless you are in Scotland in which case it's not 2 for £20, don't know what it is there: maybe £10 individual price? We are due new price collection data soon and I doubt they'll make the same mistake - hopefully this will be available for most of today though as it's Christmas Eve and then of course tomorrow doesn't matter. I doubt this will work after Christmas if it's a glitch on one price on the price collection. Although I was not there on Monday, it's been £12 and 2 for £20 for some time in M now (was Wednesday of last week and was yesterday too) - not Scotland of course - so it's almost certain it's not changed in pricing.

Savvybuyer

Anyway, I'm off now, probably to listen to some gangsta rap and pursue my obsession in swearing:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. I shall be alright when I emerge from such a comfortable environment later on:D.

See you all and have a good time!:)
Might be back later, I don't know as it is Christmas Eve!

I'm due to be getting up earlier on Christmas Day than any other day of the week:eek::(:rotfl::rotfl:. Oh well, has to be done!:cool::)

People not interested - just skip the whole rest of this, as I go into a lot of detail, though I don't mean describing explicit things (unlike those radio versions in the gym have done). I wouldn't even print the lyrics here even with asterisks, as I fail to understand how an asterisked version of a word makes something "clean". It doesn't. I mean, if you say... (well, I'm not going to go to there let me move on, I'm not even going to give an asterisked example as I think even that would be inappropriate here and risk causing offence. Yet this is exactly what daytime radio has brought into my workplace and gym. For anyone really interested - and not bothered by this - otherwise warning you must skip - I'm thinking the song by Outkast, Ms Jackson and the lyric from that and then printing the word with two asterisks in the middle - to mean, even the sentence with asterisking in would not be "clean". It's explicit - it's clear and it relates to... what it relates to, a particular sexual act. That's what made me uncomfortable hearing with a female colleague at work when it came onto the radio, and it was at the point between the words "my" and "all" that I felt my heart slight sink, because I knew what the radio meant and because of the explicit nature of the meaning - I wouldn't myself even talk like that in front of her, not even pausing or whatever between the words so as to convey the word for male genitals in between) - I wouldn't even myself imitate the edited radio version of the phrase around her. I wouldn't pause or say it as if 'under my breath' or the first bit or even try and suggest it. I wouldn't say the full phrase and I wouldn't say, or imitate, the partial version with me similar to pausing or implying the word. That word has always come to my mind wherever hearing the radio version of the song at that point. In retrospect, I also now consider the radio version (as with the uncensored one btw) to be inappropriate for young children to hear, as they may know the word and know its use in other contexts (such as calling someone a fool, btw, which may or may not be acceptable) and therefore be aware of it but the partial lyric would still communicate it to them and do so in a phrase that now made them aware of a particular sexual act that is inappropriate for them to learn about at that age. You don't need to say the word. They would know the word: they may realise that that was the word meant here and it's given it to them in a sexual context.

For an idea for you as to how much five year olds know, I note a women teacher went into schools to teach children about the dangers of sexting - and she didn't even use the word sexting or any description inappropriate to their age - but she showed them an image of a mobile phone with a blurred picture of a naked body showing on it - and the children laughed as they clearly knew what that was showing and knew it was "naughty". So, in the same way, I reckon they'd fill the word conveyed by this radio version of the song in their mind just like I do - and my discomfort when I'm listening to it involuntarily (it always is) with other people. They know these words from the age of 2 or 4. I could hardly leave the room during a professional work discussion and it was her radio that came on with the song. I felt a bit uncomfortable from the outset, knowing what was to come up and, when it did, my heart fell a bit, because of the meaning (the individual word) and worsened on this occasion because of the nature of what it meant (the meaning of the phrase and what it was referring to).
(I think, about the gangsta rap, without being sexist, though I probably am being:eek:, it's one for the lads isn't it? Which I sort of am, so that's probably why it fits into my social group within society during that specific time that I'm in that environment that it creates and I like it, so there we are, hey, there we go: don't force you to listen to it! Unlike... they actually "force" me to have to listen to something like that when it's in public places that are reasonably necessary to attend and can't avoid hearing it without, as has now been made the case, making it impossible even to continue to go there because of how problematic, in that other environment, it is for me. Okay, in a sense, I'm not forced, since I don't have to go there. But, in practice, it was equivalent to me being, because it was such a place: is it reasonably necessary to require me to be unable to attend gyms in order to be able not to hear it? That is precisely what I have to now be unable to do, in order to avoid and not have to hear offensive material that is offensive in that public place. It's not an acceptable situation: society should not exclude people like this. And they have done, in effect: made it impossible for me to have continued to keep going. That's precisely the situation folks: I can't go to any gym as they all play offensive material. At least I've saved money, and they've lost out to the tune of several hundreds of pounds from me over the years I have not now been physically able to go without being caused, at each session, something that is patently offensive and disruptive to my life. But I didn't want to save money there: that's not the point. It's quite unacceptable as a situation and it's the same as making a city a no-go area for me simply because thugs have taken over in that area. It should not be and there is no need for it, especially coming from so-called responsible organisations that you would expect to have decency about them, but instead set up barriers of exclusion that exclude or have the effect of excluding a vulnerable person from being able to go to them. It doesn't matter than it's been in the pop charts: it's still offensive. There are number 1 hits that have got to me. It doesn't matter, they are still offensive, in that environment, and not appropriate for public airing in such a place. I've left doctor's surgery reception areas and had to go outside to get away from an offensive song - it's always a radio version that contains the offensive material - I've no problem with the uncensored originals as they do not play them (and neither I am asking that they do so, as they might probably cause me offence too in such a place) - I can't wait in the doctors if such a song comes on - should I be having to do this? If I leave, I can't explain to them why, as I feel physically uncomfortable (unbelievable I know, having posted all on here) explaining to them because of the topic matter - so I'm confused as to what to do or how to behave - but somehow I feel like this is more easy to post and it's like writing a private letter and I do have more problems with oral communication sometimes. I'm probably my own worst enemy as I have owned a copy of the songs myself, thus putting them into the charts. However, I have got them to play in my appropriate private spaces rather than for them to be brought, inappropriately, into other places in which, in any form, they are inappropriate to me to play, and the radio versions do not resolve the matter: they compound it, conveying and communicating all the original language and worse. You still get the message, and it's not acceptable or appropriate to play no matter how much they think it is. And, can I teach them a lesson in civility as why that might not be the case, since they seem not to know these basic things, it's inappropriate because it causes me serious offence. Rocket science, isn't it? I don't consider it appropriate, indeed I consider it to be inappropriate, to play songs that cause me serious offence in environments in which they do so. Am I being unreasonable? And, even if I am, I consider that it is totally justified for me to be unreasonable given how seriously unreasonable, intolerable and repeatedly, consistently and gravely and grossly offensive they have been.

I've found the radio versions so much more bothersome. I feel, now, that the uncensored versions would be 'just like a film' (and inoffensive). I had been at my wits end and beyond and back again several times during these years. Indeed, I did hear an uncensored song in a shop once with repeated swearing in it - it was a small specialist music, and the song was going on about all sorts of things, but bizarrely I know, it didn't bother me and - illogical I know - I wasn't caused any offence. I was absolutely fine with that uncensored song - but, importantly, I think it was the environment - I was there, as the only customer in the shop, the aisle were very close to each other and I could not see anyone else, except the importantly young, male shop assistant who was obviously okay with what was being played, since it was being played in his shop when only he was there (and me). I almost feel amused by the song! Anyway, I've been fed up of songs that make me uncomfortable, in places (environments) in which they do so, and periodically just get to thinking about this and still not happy about it and then experiencing (although decreasingly) all the symptoms I had from the same - and the problem songs have all been "radio" versions (that are plainly therefore unsuitable for playing on the radio in those places). It's the so-called radio versions that have been the dirty versions to me: "dirty" defined as "inappropriate to the environment in which it is playing", whilst the so-called dirty versions have been, for me, the clean ones, containing as they do, the clean feeds of the words and a clean copy of the song.

http://www.definitions.net/definition/CLEAN%20COPY

Clean copy: definition: "A copy of a draft of a document [well, yeah, can be audio] without editing notations." I rest my case. They've got the dirty, unwanted editing marks on their copies, that are, therefore, not clean. Clearly the so-called "clean" versions - now the bane of my life and only problem I've had in it - have editing notations in them and are, therefore, not clean copies of the songs at all. And hence not clean.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=dirty+definiton
1. covered or marked with an unclean substance.
Which is precisely what that altered sound is, an "unclean substance", because of its meaning.
...
3. concerned with sex in a lewd or obscene way.
Which is what some of their (what they call clean) versions are, since the nature of the material is still obvious and it's still concerned with sex no matter what they do to the communication. In other words, not stopped its nature from getting through to me. And they are still obscene as they are demonstrably offensive in the impact and effect they have on me and my feelings. I felt with one song it kept going on with altered sound versions of the words throughout it and I very much got the gist of the song and what it was meaning and going on about, and I was not happy at all with the gist and what it meant, as I was in a place with strangers around me, and felt very offended by the song. I do not want to listen to uncomfortable material of a sexual nature, especially given the explicit language in which it is coming across and being conveyed to me, with strangers being around me hearing it too. It is still sexual content even if they have changed the word into the altered sound version of the same thing, which carries and implies the exact same meaning and does so with a discomfort added to it that emphasises its own inappropriate language which, being the so-called censored version, is emphasising its own inappropriateness whilst still communicating it and inappropriately and offensively conveying its inappropriate language into that place. It contains an added admission as to its own wrong and is, therefore, even more wrong. I do not wish to be reminded about the inappropriateness of the language, which the altered version, by being altered, does and therefore makes itself even more unwanted and inappropriate. Unwanted? Now, that's close to the definition of sexual harassment! Repeated behaviour, causing offensive, unwanted, sexual nature? Again, if ordinary person did this around someone in a workplace it would be grounds for disciplinary action. The organisation would have a health and safety duty as well to protect its staff. However, when it's me that is caused offence and the same as sexual harassment, because it's sometimes been something of a sexual nature, that's been done on more than one occasion and there's been a nexus between the various occurrences, in that they involve similar type of material, which I don't want because it's offensive to me there, and I note indeed I have suffered the very same physical symptoms as victims of sexual harassment report, but when it's only me and not something I'm doing to their staff, then the boot is suddenly on the other foot in this society and they don't accept their own reprehensible, offensive and harassing behaviour. I doesn't matter. The whole point is about removing offence and not causing offence to someone. That is why it is supposedly "censored". However, when its that replacement material, of the sound that is being used instead of the technical word, then the censored versions are containing the offensive material and the censored versions should be banned. I'm not complaining about censorship. I want censorship. I want the censored versions to be completely banned. Which would therefore amount to censorship. And it would be effective, as it would ensure I was not caused offence by the broadcast throughout a public building's room of offensive material. So - campaign I think, to censor the censored material, to ban the offensive censored material from being played out, because that replacement material that has been used in places where the word was originally used in the 'uncensored' version is itself the offensive material and is more problematic and offensive, because it makes it makes that clear and because it draws attention, and because its disguised nature makes me uncomfortable, because it truly isn't disguising and I can't pretend otherwise, I just feel uncomfortable with when other people are around me - well, not just uncomfortable - really really seriously annoyed, really hit harshly by one sometimes, really abrasive sound that was added to the swearing in its slightly altered form, like someone shouting it aggressively rather than merely saying it - that one hit me not even for six but absolute nine, absolute heart sank right to the floor, worse than ever, really floored me emotionally with it and I was literally left crying in the changing room, no-one to comfort me, this being the culmination of weeks and weeks and weeks of suffering yet again offence on every one of them. That absolutely upset me - and the nature of the word which was totally clear due to the first part of it being said and then the disguised sound sounding too close for comfort, just like a nasty tone to the already (in that context) nasty word. One that is considered generally to be among the most severe of all, so again my offence is justified. It's ineffective, it's known what it means and is theoretically the same offence but in practice a greater more offensive thing because it draws attention, makes it more clear, makes it impossible to ignore, everyone will know to my discomfort, and the 'disguised' nature to it which truly isn't adds to my discomfort, as well as causing me an extra annoyance on top of the already offence.
The only way I would be comfortable was if I were able to sit down with every person who was going to be present and to ask them if they were totally comfortable with it and to be reassured that in every respect they were. And then, when I'd done that, since everyone was okay, there would then be no point playing the censored version at all but the uncensored one with the same meaning, but which contains the milder version of the words, namely the actual words themselves, sounds very mild in the originals, doesn't make clear it is offensive, might as well then be played. I don't understand how or why the radio versions are sometimes referred to as "sanitised" versions. My understanding of something that is "sanitised" is that it is made milder, is made more palatable and is made neutral and okay. Not something that makes things more harsh and causes me more offence. I don't consider this to be sanitised at all. Instead, it would seem to me, the uncensored version is the more "sanitised" one:rotfl:. Clearly, if I'd had no ultimate problem with, by itself and with no similar songs around it, a single use of the word only and another word indistinct, Scissor Sisters Filthy Gorgeous album version but radio version has caused me offence on every one of the occasions when I've encountered around my father, it's always made me uncomfortable (I've not always been able to avoid it, as others have, contrary to my wishes, put the television on, I've not got the remote control, not been able to leave the room beforehand, before the material has gone out, and doing so on one occasion caused an argument and then I was unable to explain why I had left the room - my father was wanting to talk to me but I just left all of a sudden because the material that was going to make me uncomfortable was almost about to come on - only because I knew because I'd heard the song before and not because of any warning that they choose not to give - and even if a warning was given it would not be acceptable anyway - if I was in the gym I would still have to leave and disrupt my activities, and that itself would not be acceptable, as well as the warning itself containing a description that reminds me of and puts in the mind the very thing that is upsetting me and therefore itself being offensive material in a place in which I was caused offence as any discussion there is offlimits for me - but I left the room all of a sudden, because I was feeling uncomfortable, probably in mid-sentence of my father talking to me and then could not explain to my father why I'd left as I felt extremely uncomfortable mentioning the nature of the issue. I have problems even saying the word "swearword" (that is the word "swearword" and not any specific word of that nature) when I am around other people in RL and thus not able even to refer to or discuss the matter at all. So I can't even describe it, because I find it impossible to bring myself to say a word that describes what it is. I can't even call it "offensive language" as that's describing the nature of the language and itself makes me uncomfortable even to mention about it or let him know in any way.
5. ...(of popular music) having a distorted or rasping tone.
Which is precisely what those altered sounds often sound like. They are, clearly, a distortion of the sound and therefore meet the definition of being "dirty".

Clarification: I don't personally see swearing as "dirty", I am just using the definitions in the dictionaries and other places that I find in order to support my argument that their own description is wrong. It appears to fit the definition of "dirty" to me, even though as usual I have no opinion one way or another, no rational opinion whatsoever, being the ever impartial and completely objective observer that I am. I don't see it as either dirty, clean or anything else. Except I do describe something as "offensive" if it causes me extreme physical emotional reaction and therefore appears to me to fit an accepted definition of that. That may properly be called "offensive". Except that it's not been swear words that have caused me offence, has it? It's been the replacement material that's used instead that's caused me all the severe offence. Completely unacceptable to have used it in my opinion, in the places in which it has caused me that offence. The so-called "clean" songs still contain swearing btw. Implied swearing is still swearing. It may as well, it's the same thing. In theory: in practice it's caused me even more bother, so it's not the "same" thing, it's something more severe (for me, judging by the physical effect it's had on me and not my own opinion). I managed to cope with the album version of the Scissor Sisters song in the gym on the one occasion it was played. Now, that aside, it might well be the case, that had the unaltered swearwords been actually played out, I may, depending on the 'severity' of the word, and how often used, as well as other maybe somewhat random factors in my emotion, have had a problem with that and been caused offence by the actual swearwords. However, that has not been the case: since songs with actual swearwords in them have never normally been played. The only one I heard was this Scissor Sisters song, on one occasion only and on that occasion, because the word was not a severe one, fortunately, I was not ultimately caused offence - though it wasn't neutral and I was caused the same initial reaction to the actual unaltered word as I was to the replacement material in the radio version. When it was the radio version however, the radio version then spun a life of its own and caused me the extreme offence. So, purely due to songs with repeated "severe" unaltered language never having been played, I therefore have no problem with those. They're never played. My problem is with the radio edits, that are the more offensive material that have caused me severe problems on almost every occasion. I was initially okay, but then started not being - when it was done more and more and, I've tried to cope and not be caused offence and managed it on one occasion, only to have another song then played and me go right into offence. I should not have had to tolerate it, and in any event I've not been able to do so.

Folks, there's my novel that I'm going to write:rotfl:.

Maybe I needed to get all of what I've said out so it was useful to me, I don't know.

underperky

Good xmas eve mornng