Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

Anon

When you see how much T are making of their BG instore and elsewhere, and with the withdrawal of M and S from price matching, it seems odd A are not making more of the APG. Yes T BG is instant, which is an advantage, but A offer 10% more. Unless they are working on a till based APG which was suggested is possible with the E4gle 3ye system they implemented?

Anon

underperky

altojack wrote: »

Thank you to you all who have been asking about me and how I am. Sending your good wishes and hoping I get well soon. It is at this point I feel I owe you all a full explanation of what has happened to date. So here goes

As some of you know I suffer from multi joint osteoarthritis and have done since approx 1982 :eek: as the years have moved on so has the amount of pain I suffer on a daily basis. It never completely goes, it's there all day everyday and certain foods or weather makes it flare up badly. There again a few of you know this as you're sufferers yourselves.

Over 18 months ago I had a full knee replacement. This was a biggie for me but everything is as should be there. Sad part is sleep or rather lack of arises then can come low moods or slight depression.

Anyway, I am taking a cocktail of medication, from slow release morphine capsules, duloxetine, and a few others. Over 2 years ago my doctor put me onto Gabapentin. Once the side effects of sleepiness past all seemed well. My dose was 1 at tea time and 2 at bedtime.

So, for over a month now I've felt not 100% and my lower legs and feet have been swollen up from when I wake, and over night. In other words 24 hours a day. My doctor then decided I should have an extra Gabapentin, taken in the morning. There again side effects of me falling asleep half hour after getting out of bed! :eek:

I've put up with this then decided to stop taking Gabapentin. Infact I did tell a fair friend of mine that's what I was going to do. Now for some reason after a couple of days I just thought to myself, 'right stop them completely' Worse thing I could ever have done.

My doctor had to be called out due to the condition I was in. Trembling, headache, hit, cold, stomache cramps. All part of withdrawal symptoms it seems. I had no idea that I had become so dependant on these tablets.

my doc has made me go back on 3 tablets a day for a few days before I reduce to 2 a day and so on. I am also to go for a review of my meds after I've reduced again or earlier if I'm having problems.

Sorry for the length of this, it wasn't meant to be a preface to my autobiography :rotfl:

Take care and rest when you need to ...pain so saps your energy

Picasso7

mhoc wrote: »

no Oppo in my waitrose :mad: - she did say the mint would be back in on the 7th but I don't hold out much hope.

so then I could not get the free newspaper as there was not much else I wanted

I doubt if any of our small coops stock it but I am close to a small holland Barrett on Tuesday - so maybe yet

I did though get 2 packs of the free COS biscuits from waitrsoe so not a complete wasted trip and we do like their coffee

and we went back via Mr !!!!!! which for once was a successful shop :j

Had not clocked the free biscuits. Thank you!!

Savvybuyer

ChelseaFred wrote: »

Evening all:hello:

My best-ever womble:j £12.25
21 items (15 different) on your receipt qualify for comparison Asda Tesco
1x Wrigley Extra Peppermint Sugarfree Gum (5PK) £1.65 £1.65
1x ASDA Chosen by You Salted Peanuts (1KG) £3.00 N/A
1x Foster's Lager (20X440) £12.00 £11.00
2x ASDA Smartprice Lemonade (2L) £0.34 £0.34
1x Budweiser Lager (18X440) £15.00 £12.00
1x Lajkonik Paluszki - Salted Sticks (200G) £0.68 N/A
4x Kingsmill Medium White Bread (800G) £3.00 £3.00
2.13x ASDA Butcher's Selection Rindless Pork Loin Joint (Typically 1.78kg) (PER KG) £6.38 N/A
1x Asda SmartPrice ASDA Grower's Selection Peppers (700G) £1.00 N/A
1x Cadbury Dairy Milk Fruit & Nut Chocolate Bar (120G) £1.00 £1.00
1x Chicago Town Takeaway Chicken & Bacon Melt Classic Crust Pizza (495GR) £2.50 £3.90
1x Cadbury Dairy Milk Whole Nut Chocolate Bar (120G) £1.00 £1.00
3x ASDA Smart Price Milk Chocolate Bar (100G) £0.90 £0.90
1x Ariel Liquid Detergent 40 Washes (2LT) £10.00 £5.00
1x Lancashire Farm Low Fat Natural Yogurt (1KG) £1.00 £1.35
1x ASDA Smartprice 15 Eggs (15PK) £1.25 £1.25
1x ASDA Smart Price Toilet Roll (6PK) £1.00 £1.00
1x Napolina Double Concentrate Tomato Puree (200G) £0.75 N/A
1x ASDA Grower's Selection Carrots (1KG) £0.45 N/A
1x ASDA Butcher's Selection Chicken Thighs (1.1KG) £2.75 N/A
1x Sure Women Sensitive Stick Anti-Perspirant Deodorant (45ML) £5.00 £5.00
1x ASDA Smartprice Mild White Cheddar (830G) £3.49 N/A
1x Asda Smartprice Clear Honey (425G) £1.11 N/A
1x ASDA Sunflower Oil (1L) £1.05 £0.99
Comparison total (compared products only) £56.69 £49.38

Good comparisons on the Lager, what a pity they didn't choose Carling, I have a few credits for them! Couldn't believe the price of the deodorant, had to check it but it's true. Lucky with several other wombles too, totalling £20.20 - I love dry windy days;)

You might not necessarily have wanted the Carling since it's £13 in T - whilst it would still have contributed to the APG (and therefore not subtracted from it in that sense), it would have been lower than it was. However, if they'd bought 2 crates... 2 for £20 in T!:D Of course it would have been slightly better if they hadn't bought the Chicago Town. Wombles buying £10 detergent liquid that compares to half the price elsewhere (at a place that's generally same price as A) is always a good move!

Fwiw, what's the M comp. like on this womble? Do they pick up the Lajkonik sticks (not that they are on offer in M at the moment) or indeed the Lancs. Farm yoghurt? TIA.

Savvybuyer

scamps1966 wrote: »

!!!!!, I've gone cold! XXX

It's unusual for people to use a five-letter word:huh: there, in my house they always pick words that have only four letters in them (or at least only I do, but then I control the rules in this home:cool:), so, as the number of letters doesn't fit, I'm bemused at what you are trying to say:rotfl:. I just can't think of a five letter word that would generally fit - unless it's a Scottish version but then that was wholly mild 20 years ago and hardly worth qualifying as anything these days. IMO:rotfl::rotfl:.

Anyroad... er, good evening, folks!:o:o:rotfl::)

Just sit here whilst I ponder for minutes and minutes now, trying to work out what you were saying and going through far more words and far beyond what you ever meant to say (whatever it was:rotfl:). Eventually though I'll give up as unable to work it out - by which point (have we forgotten the point?) I'll be wondering what the whole point of posting anything at all was as it's failed to provide any communication at all. I gather you've gone cold but... I really do need to know what you were saying before that, especially as you seem so unwilling to tell me:rotfl:.

Meanwhile... I may as well mention this here now as hardly an unrelated topic. I went and saw a film earlier, that had been described by a film critic as "cheeky" and then upgraded to "filthy". I had to see it at that point since I find absolute "filth" really funny and I spent some of the evening earlier talking with my brother about the type of things that it might say (none of which I can repeat here), only to find that the actual film contained none of anything of the extremity that I had mentioned but only stuff that was entirely mild by comparison:o:o:rotfl:. The day a film with an advisory of allegedly "very strong language" contains only mild language and "strong sex references" means extremely mild sex references:rotfl:. It wasn't filthy at all, and really I am far far worse!:rotfl: It's mild where I come from and I've heard far worse/better. In a way I'm almost sorry I subjected my brother to far worse things than ever turned out to be in the film (which was funny although not as good as another film I saw recently - in fact that other film is nearly pornographic - and 15-rated as well:rotfl: - not inappropriately though) although of course he was completely unfazed by anything I'd said. Just not enough proper sex references - in fact almost none at all:o:o:rotfl: - I want my Club Lloyds voucher back:rotfl:!

I think it was just "cheeky" or not even that - and the film critic seemed to think it was the first ten minutes although for me the scattering of it was all over the film, so I've no idea if we were seeing the same film as each other (in fact, from the POV of me being autistic I am sure I never see the same film as anyone else ever - and have never done so, although I used to think that the way I saw films was normal and that everybody saw them in the same way).

Gosh, you should have heard me - or not!:D:cool: - my language was absolutely graphic and explicit whereas the film was not.:rotfl: I've no idea what classification I'd receive, presumably merely "very strong" (whatever that meaningless and vague concept is:rotfl:) if that was "strong" for them whereas some of their stuff you could safely say to me even out in public in front of the checkout lady and I wouldn't blush. I don't know, I must be so used to proper explicit than anything less than that just seems totally mild to me:rotfl:. (I guess I live in a different world and am from a different generation to anyone that is shocked by even less.)

Anyway, I don't even accept that anything short of my language is explicit, so a lot of those CDs labelled as containing "explicit content" don't contain any such thing - it is, of course, merely the opinion of the record company or person who put the label on it and not a substantiated fact - merely putting a label on something does not make it so - but that's my own opinion I suppose* - and neither do many films or programmes warned about "strong language" contain any such thing. I wouldn't call something that was occasionally funny and, otherwise, totally neutral "strong" at all (let alone "very strong") - to me, strong/very strong would be stuff that was seriously offensive which, this, because it did not cause me serious offence or indeed any offence, and there seems no evidence to me that anyone at all in the audience suffered any such thing either, was not.

EDIT: Actually, the Film Review has been on just now. One part of it "was very blatantly about Arab/Israeli issues". Oops, I missed that:o - I didn't notice it at all in the film:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. Yet again I think I missed the context (most certainly due to my autism) and so it wasn't obvious or "blatant" to me at all:rotfl:! I did get some of the other minor parts of insight though.

*Does putting a label onto something make it so? I don't think it does actually. You could label a tub of margarine as being beans and it wouldn't make the product beans - it would still be margarine inside. So, I don't think that putting a label onto something makes it to be the thing that it is asserted to be at all. Neither was anything in the film "dirty" at all, despite the film critic claiming it to be "very dirty", as sex isn't dirty to me and neither are almost innocuous:rotfl: references to it. You can label all you like (and they do so, and fail to do so, extremely inconsistently - as is usual of the rest of society) and it still doesn't make it such. It could, or may, do so only if that general labelling is accepted without challenge or question by people generally and acts either as a form of brainwashing or socially conditioning people into believing it to be so. But even if an entire population believes it to be so, that still does not make it the case or true. (We've had entire societies in the past believe that the Earth was flat and that didn't make it the case.)

ChelseaFred

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Fwiw, what's the M comp. like on this womble? Do they pick up the Lajkonik sticks (not that they are on offer in M at the moment) or indeed the Lancs. Farm yoghurt? TIA.

Here you go Savvy, would have given an APG of £5.85.

17 items (14 different) on your receipt qualify for comparison Asda Morrisons
1x Wrigley Extra Peppermint Sugarfree Gum (5PK) £1.65 £1.67
1x ASDA Chosen by You Salted Peanuts (1KG) £3.00 N/A
1x Foster's Lager (20X440) £12.00 £15.00
2x ASDA Smartprice Lemonade (2L) £0.34 £0.34
1x Budweiser Lager (18X440) £15.00 £13.93
1x Lajkonik Paluszki - Salted Sticks (200G) £0.68 £0.68
4x Kingsmill Medium White Bread (800G) £3.00 N/A
2.13x ASDA Butcher's Selection Rindless Pork Loin Joint (Typically 1.78kg) (PER KG) £6.38 N/A
1x Asda SmartPrice ASDA Grower's Selection Peppers (700G) £1.00 N/A
1x Cadbury Dairy Milk Fruit & Nut Chocolate Bar (120G) £1.00 £1.41
1x Chicago Town Takeaway Chicken & Bacon Melt Classic Crust Pizza (495GR) £2.50 £2.50
1x Cadbury Dairy Milk Whole Nut Chocolate Bar (120G) £1.00 £1.41
3x ASDA Smart Price Milk Chocolate Bar (100G) £0.90 £0.90
1x Ariel Liquid Detergent 40 Washes (2LT) £10.00 £6.00
1x Lancashire Farm Low Fat Natural Yogurt (1KG) £1.00 £1.00
1x ASDA Smartprice 15 Eggs (15PK) £1.25 N/A
1x ASDA Smart Price Toilet Roll (6PK) £1.00 £2.00
1x Napolina Double Concentrate Tomato Puree (200G) £0.75 N/A
1x ASDA Grower's Selection Carrots (1KG) £0.45 N/A
1x ASDA Butcher's Selection Chicken Thighs (1.1KG) £2.75 £1.98
1x Sure Women Sensitive Stick Anti-Perspirant Deodorant (45ML) £5.00 N/A
1x ASDA Smartprice Mild White Cheddar (830G) £3.49 N/A
1x Asda Smartprice Clear Honey (425G) £1.11 N/A
1x ASDA Sunflower Oil (1L) £1.05 £1.20

That's it from me, Goodnight (just) all.

ChelseaFred:)

Savvybuyer

Anon wrote: »

When you see how much T are making of their BG instore and elsewhere, and with the withdrawal of M and S from price matching, it seems odd A are not making more of the APG. Yes T BG is instant, which is an advantage, but A offer 10% more. Unless they are working on a till based APG which was suggested is possible with the E4gle 3ye system they implemented?

Anon

I'm not surprised T are making a lot of this as it no doubt gets them most customers and makes T more money as people generally, at best, opt into paying the higher prices of a competitor on the brands in their shop (that's if they buy enough). They may get a few pence/a couple of pounds off to match paying the prices on cheaper brands of that other place (whilst, in effect, paying for items that are more expensive at the competitor at those higher prices rather than the T price).

I thought about this the other day - specifically if, for example, a shopper buys the Rustler's Hot Dog that's £2 in T and £1 at S but their branded shop is better overall versus A, which doesn't sell Rustler's Hot Dog, they pay A prices on the comparable brands (comparable to A) in their shop (as far as T's system picks them up) and, even if there were 10 branded/non-branded items in their shop and they added a Rustler's Hot Dog to it would be paying T £2 for that Hot Dog, not the £1 Sains. price, as A worked out better overall and it was N/A. So, they'd pay T twice the cost on the Hot Dog - whilst doubtless thinking they were getting price matching - indeed they are - to the lower and higher prices at A of the things that A has - and you can see why T would want people generally to believe that and be paying them £2 for the Hot Dog!

Price matching may be perceived (and it's about perception not reality) as a good thing by consumers generally - but matching higher prices of competitors (especially likely when you pick up an item on special offer in the store you are shopping at, namely T) is not good for the customer! Even though it may be presented or suggested to them as being so - and, of course, being the ill-informed general population that has strange views, beliefs and ideas on a lot of things (but not everything... they got the idea that murder, rape and child abuse are bad things about right, but not much beyond that), it will be very easy to convince them to believe that something is saving them money when the reality is they are paying more on some items than they need to!

I didn't know whether T is removing S and M from the "match" - I can see the BG website still refers to all three competitors but maybe I am looking at the wrong thing - but you know what will happen to items on Tvs M if T ever withdraws M from the scheme. That's right... buy in M!:p:D:D:rotfl:

I don't see it is necessarily odd that A aren't making more of their scheme.Perhaps they really don't want everybody claiming 10%. It is better than the other schemes and the reason is the others are substainable even if everyone claims (or is automatically entered if they buy 10 or more items) is because - for the vast majority of customers that don't use or know about glitches - it's merely the same prices as they could have had from a competitor. If everybody had 10% off the prices of a competitor, or even a basket of items, it would mean A getting 10% less money from its customers than its competitors get from theirs. Actually it would not as, for the reasons that people pay A prices, which may be more expensive or sometimes much more expensive than a competitor if they are non-comparable against another competitor and that place comes out best overall, but it is better than the price-matching scheme which is why when A sets its own prices it generally charges the same price as everywhere else and not 10% lower. There is no benefit in being underpriced as it makes you less profit. A have stepped back from promoting the APG - they had a review, but it seems to have gone quiet and I've heard nothing since - I don't know what if anything is happening - perhaps it's just gone into the long grass and just kept there as it is but without promotion (a good thing from A's POV as it means fewer claims being made) but they have put a pause on some areas of their business, such as promoting the APG, whilst they concentrate on trying to win the price war instead (a thing that the APG ought to stop but is not being promoted so it isn't).

So it comes as little surprise to me that there's no promotion. I don't know whether they are working on another scheme or not. I think the TBG scheme, sadly, as an inferior scheme, wins out with the general population for several reasons: (1) the population generally is misguided; (2) it is simple to the general public to understand (as if there is anything complex about the APG, but, for the general public even entering a receipt is too much, and we know how lacking in knowledge the public generally is); and (3) it is easy to promote and advertise TBG to them (and leave them with the impression that they are getting a discount that always matches lower prices on every branded item in their shop against the cheapest place elsewhere). You can't simply pick up those cornflakes in the original advertising and get them for a lower price of elsewhere - you need to buy more items and won't get a discount of the full price of the difference on the cornflakes if you also (as is likely) buy branded items that are more expensive at the cheaper cornflakes place. This is complicated (for the public) and doesn't need to be mentioned - but they get the general concept and it's alright if the public generally get a different impression as that's not your fault but that of the public for being so lacking in knowledge. Here, the general concept (or gist) is unimportant, but of course the public gives it importance that it does not have, whilst the detail is what matters and is the significant importance they they generally miss:rotfl:. So, they end up paying more than what they should by putting expensive Hot Dogs into baskets against the wrong competitor or by failing to buy them at the cheapest place outright without having to buy an extra nine items on a separate matter (a matter about which the public generally are unaware of the need to do in T if they are to get the cheapest competitor price on everything).

You can see why T might want people to pay more expensive prices than that - and that's exactly what the TBG scheme still ends up in them doing, if they don't pay the full T price which not infrequently people I suspect will do, whilst legitimately leaving people with a different impression and one that is attractive and simple to understand (simple to misunderstand!:D), easy to advertise to people and people generally will take it up without question, because it looks very good. I think people generally think it is simple but the truth, I think, is it really is not and they do not understand it. Whereas the simplicity of the APG is misunderstood and people think it's complicated:rotfl:.

Even if I were to try to explain to people more generally (that is not us savvy minority on this thread that know how it works, unlike the misguided public!, but to people generally outside) how it really works and that they are still sometimes paying T higher prices on some brands even when they are cheaper at a competitor (namely a competitor to which the shop they bought on happened not to compare "best" overall), people generally, I think, will still not understand what I am trying to tell them and would find it completely boring and uninteresting and would not pay any attention to me - or, if they did, would still misunderstand what I say:wall:.

It's generally not well known, or appreciated, that you still pay full T prices on items that don't compare against the best competitor and of course Mr T does not advertise this fact or need to so so. It's, indeed, in T's interests to avoid people generally being aware of it and trying to ensure that as few people as possible understand it. If people generally really did understand TBG and use it genuinely to save money on every brand they bought, buying every one of them in the most efficient way, the TBG would not exist any more. The fact is - and T knows it - that people generally do not shop this way and it is in their interests to promote a promotion that gets people to use them as the supplier, whilst failing to understand the system and still paying T higher prices than comparable competitors on some things (because they've bought them on a shop that overall compared best against somewhere else for example. Or because they bought fewer than 10 different items or some other reason).

Instead they can promote as if people are getting a "discount" on their shopping when in fact it's merely paying the same price as somewhere else (which may not be the cheapest price on everything they bought) and getting a "discount" feels good.

Same way that redemption of Nectar points or money on the Halifax account are referred to as "rewards". It's as if, in the context of Sains., it's there as if you've "treated" yourself (which feels good) and been "rewarded", when in fact you've spent money and therefore lost something. You have the products you have "bought" but have lost the Nectar points you've used to get them. But of course the store doesn't want to present it as a loss to us. So, aware of the truth that the public generally appear to be in denial about, I don't feel "rewarded" at all - but they do because they experience meaningless emotional attachments to things I, fortunately, don't:rotfl:. It's termed a "reward" though. It's all about the words that are used:D. Words they use, and the emotions they bring, matter - and they are the key to marketing. In other words - the things that gets us to spend more money and that we should resist at all costs!:p:D:rotfl::rotfl::money::cool:

3Dogs

Glad to hear from you AJ but :eek: :eek: Take care hun

I'm off to bed now, though if its anything like the last few nights, it will be about 4 am when I get to sleep. Noela has not really been any trouble since I got her about 18 months ago. All my concerns and vet visits have been about Berry and Millie, but Noela has taken to barking during the night :eek:

Savvybuyer

ChelseaFred wrote: »

Here you go Savvy, would have given an APG of £5.85.

Thank you. No surprises there for me on the M comp. So... 1.1Kg Chicken Thighs best vs M?
But don't rush, I suspect - probably not the best price for weight of Chicken Thighs that could be obtained and all other sizes will need to be checked to see if they are better either on A's straight price or vs anywhere else:rotfl:.

Goodnight!:D:):A

Savvybuyer

Savvybuyer wrote: »

*Does putting a label onto something make it so? I don't think it does actually. You could label a tub of margarine as being beans and it wouldn't make the product beans - it would still be margarine inside. So, I don't think that putting a label onto something makes it to be the thing that it is asserted to be at all. Neither was anything in the film "dirty" at all, despite the film critic claiming it to be "very dirty", as sex isn't dirty to me and neither are almost innocuous:rotfl: references to it. You can label all you like (and they do so, and fail to do so, extremely inconsistently - as is usual of the rest of society) and it still doesn't make it such. It could, or may, do so only if that general labelling is accepted without challenge or question by people generally and acts either as a form of brainwashing or socially conditioning people into believing it to be so. But even if an entire population believes it to be so, that still does not make it the case or true. (We've had entire societies in the past believe that the Earth was flat and that didn't make it the case.)

See, the soundtrack of the film on Amazon has one of the tracks labelled as "[Explicit]". (But I wasn't going to buy it:money::rotfl:.) But other tracks contain so-called strong swearing too. None of those are marked on that page. So, people don't even mark every track that has any explicit content, assuming that it is, at all. It seems people generally are totally inconsistent yet again. Or perhaps this is the usual neurotypical way of doing things - mark just one and forget to do the complete job to label the rest! Then they mark things as "[Clean]" that aren't (and that term itself now conflicts with American recording industry guidance - although it is also done on the American website. So yet another inconsistency across different companies in society anyway) and don't get me onto what they mark and what they don't:rotfl:. Very many things marked as "explicit" aren't, and then virtually nothing that they label as "clean" actually is whilst everything that don't mark, that actually is clean, is failed to be labelled at all along with some explicit stuff that they also fail to label or label incorrectly:rotfl:. They censor, in an ineffective way, things that are mild whilst failing to alter much stronger words and then fail to make things acceptable at all:rotfl::rotfl:.

Goodnight folks!:D:rotfl: So, in short, complete disagreement from me on every level.

It provides (IMO and I'm not a parent - and I'm sure my view would immediately and drastically change if I were to become one) no useful information or help to parents/carers at all as they don't label every track that contains so-called explicit content as "explicit" so you still have to listen to every song you have nowadays in advance in order to determine if it is appropriate for children. And then they label songs as "clean" that still contain explicit content - it reminds me of a Busta Rhymes track many years ago, where the "clean" version, although it censored the swearing (and then you knew exactly what it meant so even then didn't make it appropriate) failed to change a slang sexual phrase that is hardly appropriate for younger children and, in fact, rather graphic in my view. The guidelines state that labelling of songs as edited does not mean they are totally devoid of all objectionable content. Therefore, the whole thing is completely useless IMO. (It means you have to listen to all songs, including so-called edited versions, to see that there is no inappropriate content for children at all. And then you can't rely on an "explicit" label as it's either not applied on every occasion, missed out on some listings, or only applied when the record company decides that it merits one. There are albums with constant swearing that thus get no label (even though many, to be fair, do have them) and then an album with a minor single use or just a few uses gets one*. There's even an instrumental album that got labelled "explicit":rotfl:.)

In other words, it's a scheme devised by the recording industry merely in order to keep moral regulators and self-appointed moral guardians at bay. Such expected lip service one might think as is typical of the rest of society to me. It doesn't actually achieve or amount to anything real: as all it is is putting a label onto things (usually by incorporating into the actual artwork but sometimes, annoyingly, with literally stuck-on stickers that merely waste my time as I don't agree with them so simply am put to more time by having to peel them off - and then they defile CD cases by leaving nasty bits of glue or remnants of paper on them - just a waste of everyone's time - and actually I think their use is against the guidelines too - it should be in a form that can't be peeled off). It's just putting a label onto something, the material isn't actually banned or prevented from being in circulation (and neither should it be in my view). It's almost like Youtube where probably over 90% of material is inappropriate for children and yet a tiny percentage of it has been identified by the community and therefore requires signing in, which merely wastes my time and annoys me, it's impossible for the community to mark it all and, if they did, almost all Youtube content would be restricted. I think the alternative is it needs to be accepted that Youtube isn't a website that is appropriate for children. I would not even attempt to mark anything I felt should be restricted to adult viewing - as everything inappropriate should then be marked and not just one video and such a task would probably require me to be on the website 24 hours a day, marking virtually everything I see and would be so time-consuming and completely pointless as to not be worth attempting and even then I would not be able to see everything and mark it. So, I don't even attempt to do it besides being pointless and it then being me wrongly deciding what was or was not appropriate for others to see.

The part that makes me sometimes chuckle is that children then find their own access to "inappropriate" material and are more tech-savvy than us and then parents complain to the Daily Mail about their children accessing something and that :doh:they had no idea that such content existed on there at all:rotfl::rotfl:. I find some parents' cluenessness sometimes hugely amusing. They just don't seem to know the first start of something at all:rotfl:. So you see stuff that has to be signed in for and then turns out to be quite innocuous just because someone somewhere thought it should be restricted (probably to children who can sign in with a different DOB to their own:rotfl:) and then lots of stuff on completely open access that requires no sign-in at all that is far more "harmful" for children to see.

I think it's therefore entirely appropriate that things should be so inconsistent for a society in which that is the way in which most people operate. Although, for me, as a person who has Asperger's, things need to be consistent and clear and applied throughout on every occasion. So I think I'm unjustly applying the Asperger's approach to it when in fact that's not how society operates and instead it's completely unfathomable and illogical (says Mr Spock!:D) and applied in an inconsistent way that provides no 100% guarantee of totally appropriate content on every occasion or not and therefore requires listening to every unmarked track (usually they are the problem ones to me:rotfl:) in advance as they fail to mark every track that has any such content and to an extent that I doubt that they really listen to all the tracks at all (I suspect they don't - being neurotypicals they pay very little attention to anything:rotfl:. It's just how I see it - not meant as offensive folks:cool:! And they fail to notice a lot of stuff even when it is totally glaringly obvious to me, as someone that almost always notices every detail. The only occasion I don't is probably when I'm asleep:rotfl:.) I don't usually have problems with tracks that they do mark, that often fail to contain any content of the nature that they are marking it as containing anyway:rotfl:, and which no-one ever plays in a wrong place. It's the unmarked tracks, or the ones they mark as "clean", that are the real danger:rotfl::rotfl:! (There's some really nasty "clean" songs around:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.)

It's the U-rated material, PG and 12 rated that are the problems. I never have any problems(+) with anything in 18-rated films:rotfl:. You'd have thought that U-rated would be suitable for all - it used to mean "Universal or Suitable for All", but that's not quite what it means - yet the film classification body gets complaints (and none of them come from me) about U-rated material. So, not quite suitable for everybody after all then:rotfl:.

So, I've been onto my general discussion about classification systems again. Nonetheless, I suppose it's like the general chit-chat that we all have on this thread every day.

*Though to be fair, even a single use, even of generally accepted milder words, might not be appropriate for all circumstances and yet carries no forewarning. I think I have to listen to everything with headphones now, entirely in my own home, first in order to determine if I can play it out loud or not. And then I can't remember exactly what I can and can't play, and what's going to cause me personally a problem (in terms of causing me actual discomfort in some environments of listening), so it's all pointless.
(+)That's personally to me; I'm not talking about in relation to children.