Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

Sunshinemummy

TrulyMadly wrote: »

I'm thinking about working out a route to get round all the places I want to visit.....

How do we stop ourselves over spending?:think::think:

It is a little scary...

:D:D:D

bubbs

TrulyMadly wrote: »

I'm thinking about working out a route to get round all the places I want to visit.....

How do we stop ourselves over spending?:think::think:

Not got an amex card:p thats how you dont overspend:rotfl::rotfl:

Savvybuyer

Naebbirac wrote: »

:eek::eek:
Asleep my a*se, he's been at the Pina Coladas again :rotfl::rotfl:
N x

I got very excited about your asterisk earlier - see, I can laugh sometimes:rotfl:. Taboo and therefore more exciting:D.

I notice that I managed to slip in a full spelling just now, so we've all seen it and can all see it fully. Obviously though the context is that that was a different word and that was just because it was the right word to use in my post and wasn't prompted by your post in any way.

It's strange though as the concept of "swearing" - and btw a significant minority of people surveyed (around 30%) in 2010 said they did not even believe your word to be a swearword - seems to me nowadays to be an outdated anachronism in our society, purely there because of history, that we really ought to have gone past and got rid of by now. With us hearing all of these words all the time, I doubt any of us really are offended. It ought not even be considered to be swearing anymore (around 30% of people seem already to have done this with this word six years ago, never mind probably slightly more now). Of course, I'm talking oughts and not ises. It is not the way it is. But it ought to be.

In fact the asterisk now suggests and draws me back to a time when that word was offensive. It can be very annoying and therefore the asterisk is more offensive than the unasterisked word. Of course, it makes no difference when you see it as you read [reed] it as the full word instead. It just adds a potential annoyance (offence) onto it.

It's bizarre on this word as this site changes to it to exclamation marks (I wouldn't call that censorship if, in the context, you still know what it means - sometimes I just go to it via more "offensive" words in the meantime), yet the latest Ofcom research says on acceptability that this word is "mild language, generally of little concern". This website is therefore contrary to generally accepted standards by not printing it fully. Of course I suspect we will all be listening to - and maybe singing along with - the classic Christmas song "Fairytale of New York" again this year, maybe even played fully in public places like supermarkets, and able to hear the very same word without any problem whatsoever. It's just a bizarre and totally inconsistent application of alleged "moral" standards (that aren't moral at all because of their total inconsistency) in a society that, on this, I would rather not have been in. Because I dislike being caused discomfort by things that have unnecessarily (as I see it) made taboo in a society and therefore made me extremely uncomfortable on occasions throughout my life because of that. i identify that this problem, which has persisted throughout my life in certain areas, began the moment my parents and teachers (and society through them) made it swearing for me in my childhood - the most harmful social conditioning at the worst possible time in someone's development. I don't know why we do this, tbh and I don't see any use to it (though it does make the same thing very funny sometimes in places where it doesn't cause offence).

Everything the society does, and the things that people generally require as expressed through the broadcasting research, just make the whole thing worse for me in every respect. They think more offensive things (to me) are more acceptable and then that less offensive things are worse. I think - although it will not happen - that we ought to do what we believe to be thoroughly wrong and it might actually turn out to be the best thing to have done. Because the reinforcement and creation of the concept of "offensive language" has merely created numerous problems in my life and other lives before it and caused negative things to happen that would never have happened if it had never existed. I believe it ought never to have existed in the first place and also people in the past, including young children, and still happens from time to time even now, have taken their own lives because of being subjected to verbal abuse involving these, and so-called 'worse' words, and being made upset as a result of that. I don't know why we create words that do that and cause such bad things to happen.

Anyway, of course I now say supposedly "worse" words here at home all the time - actually it is inappropriate and "offensive" (to my own standards) to not allow them to be shown in my own home - the 'censorship' is inappropriate as it is acceptable here and not unacceptable - however I acknowledge that it may be inappropriate for some other people's homes. But, then again, there are lots of things on the Internet that are inappropriate for some people and people can simply avoid visiting those places. I suppose we simply want to make a website that welcomes and is open to everyone? (In which case, why annoy me (although you haven't!) and make the website unsuitable and inappropriate to me? And, if it is not accepted that it is, why is my opinion less valid and given less credibility than someone else's?)

:rotfl::rotfl:

I've decided to use, in speech, in my home supposedly "worse" language all the time - and no-one here has any problem and none of us ever shout at each other or get angry at any time at all (or very very rarely indeed). It is just normal conversation. Albeit that, obviously, normal conversation is inappropriate to post:rotfl::doh:. Anyway, my language at home is terrible according to the irrelevant and unsubstantiated opinions of someone else out there in the wider world and I would hope that it was:p:rotfl::beer:.

Oh dear, it makes you want to so-called swear in the opinion of someone else any time!

TrulyMadly

silvercar wrote: »

Nectar question:

Seen the Ted Baker socks reduced to £5. Are people seriously spending £5 on a pair of garish socks just to get a nectar bonus that could be worth as little as 250 points (=£1.25 value)?

Or am I missing something?

I know what you mean silvercar but I would be buying these anyway and I'm looking at the 250 points equating to £2.50 after double up.
I tend to overspend at Christmas anyway and would rather get 1 good quality pair of socks beautifully wrapped than 5 pairs of cheap ones:D

zippydooda

Spooky pumpkins choc balls are reduced to 62p and gj paid out 65p for them straight away.

TrulyMadly

BishyBarneyBee wrote: »

Just to say that I have just successfully used the Zeek code for £5 credit that was supposedly only valid for the weekend. Hope that helps somebody.

My Costa coffee card arrived today:T

Think I'll always carry one of these in my purse.....discounted coffee on tap:)

TrulyMadly

hampydoodums wrote: »

I'm still in my ex netto, they've just bought out a cage of frozen foods, all 20p. They are allowed to keep it on the cage for 20 mins then it has to go back and so on. Funky fish salmon, scampi, cauli cheese etc and I cleared the 12 bags raw tiger prawns as nobody wanted them :eek:

I can just see that Paella pic with Stanley Boy looking on:rotfl:

silvercar

BishyBarneyBee wrote: »

Only 24 hours left on the great Nectar bonus offer and I can't find anything worth buying. Does anyone have any tips please?

Ted Baker socks, turquoise with purple trim, reduced to £5 - I wonder why?

TrulyMadly wrote: »

I know what you mean silvercar but I would be buying these anyway and I'm looking at the 250 points equating to £2.50 after double up.
I tend to overspend at Christmas anyway and would rather get 1 good quality pair of socks beautifully wrapped than 5 pairs of cheap ones:D

So would I, if they were a colour that any of my men would wear!

uglybugball

bubbs wrote: »

I dont like chocs like that, just been to sort dh's new phone , looked for t's mags again still none:(
Does anyone have the soup coupon on pdf from mag please?

Pm sent Bubbs

zippydooda

Reduced ham


0.35kg