Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

Sunshinemummy

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I could tell you there is even worse. Such as people abusing their children over nearly two decades (obviously, if they are a child until 18) regularly and repeatedly throughout as part of some family ritual that the child doesn't even know is wrong, and involving both parents and other members of the family.

I just ask where are people's eyes unopened? And, if it has shocked you, your eyes were not open. It's an absolute extreme, fortunately, and the worst case imaginable but it is not non-existent although it is fortunately extremely rare. I would hope anyway - there is far too much abuse that is/has been not known about and we talk about "stranger danger" but most danger comes from people who are in a family. It's probably more rampant and widespread that we would hope, as various abuse inquiries seem to be sadly uncovering (or maybe it's good that they are uncovering it to try to stop it again). I suspect there is an awful lot of abuse out there, far more than our society would want to admit to. I would hope that the vast majority of us were still good though, and I'm sure we are.

I think we all would hope that child abuse was nonexistent.

Sadly it is far too common and comes in all forms.

purpledonkey

davemorton wrote: »

Make sure you let us know how it goes, even if it does not work, as it looks dead interesting.

Will do, as soon as I find a vat of liquid glucose. I need to raid the chemist again :rotfl:

Anon

Westvleteren wrote: »

Not sure if it has been mentioned... coupons in the latest T Mag.

Save 50p on Alpo fresh 1ltr drink (Almond, Oat, Cashew, Coconut, Hazelnut or Soya) Valid till 24th Feb

Save 50p on Alpo plaint plant based alternative to yoghurt range. Plain, Plain with coconut and plain with almond. Valid till 24th Feb

Save 30p on LylesGolden Syrup454g tin. Valid till 26 March

1 free ticket when you buy 3 health lottery ticket. Valid till 1 March.

Pretty rubbish then....

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Cashback as well? x




Really.... god I am cr*p at this elite thingymebob!



I used to have a dust pan and brush to pick lego up :D:D:D

Yes - 60p Cos/CS, 30p voucher, £1.15 in T, net 25p.

Anon

davemorton

purpledonkey wrote: »

Will do, as soon as I find a vat of liquid glucose. I need to raid the chemist again :rotfl:

Probably more pricy, but sainsburgs sell it. Bought some when I made marsh mallows.

purpledonkey

I best go to bedfordshire. I'm taking my neighbour to the airport at 5am tomorrow :eek:

Plus side though, at least I'll be awake for a Maccy D's breakfast - a rarity on a non working day :rotfl:

purpledonkey

davemorton wrote: »

Probably more pricy, but sainsburgs sell it. Bought some when I made marsh mallows.

Mine doesn't sell it anymore, but the chemist does though in 500ml pots. Good for making sugar glass (though on reflection, I shouldn't have mentioned that to them - they looked concerned). Also no pun intended

Savvybuyer

Sunshinemummy wrote: »

Cashback as well? x



Really.... god I am cr*p at this elite thingymebob!



I used to have a dust pan and brush to pick lego up :D:D:D

The broadcasters do get the occasional complaint about "god" from a small number of deeply religious people (maybe more so twenty years ago when we used to have more such people in society than now?) rather than complaints about the "crap". So, you've actually not censored the correct word (although, in general, religion-based words are less problematic in this era). I think we are moving from the 2nd age to the 3rd age though. 1st age was religion, 2nd age sex and body and 3rd age is discrimination, racism and homophobia. Anyway, for me, any censorship of words, that targets one but not another, always gives rise to inconsistency and just pops up my interest in matters again.

NB: People think I am religious (well, I am, in the sense of "hard working" but you know I meant having a religious belief), because it's assumed that me saying they should censor "god" as an expletive means that I'm being offended by it. Can I state now - so that there is no doubt - I have absolutely no problem with such words myself. It is just the censoring (which doesn't really amount to that) of (just make sure you read this in a normal tone of voice rather than harshly) "crap" that - doesn't actually give me any problem but merely makes me think about the 'inconsistency' when one word has been asterisked but another not. Anyone that does such a thing (and various media publications are implicated in this) will always have me arguing that the word they asterisked was less severe and therefore should not have been asterisked than the one they print unasterisked and me finding some context to say that the meaning of the unasterisked word in the phrase used is less severe than that of the asterisked word (and then 'objecting' to that too as the censorship, of course, is ineffective). They always do this - and set up this conundrum - people censoring some words only to fail to censor some more serious content - inevitably, you'll always give me something to say that what you didn't censor was less harmful that what you did:rotfl: (and then failed over as I still got the meaning:rotfl::rotfl:).:D

I think if we want to be consistent, about what may offend someone, we should just ban all speech, full stop:D. And then ban silence:rotfl::rotfl:.

Savvybuyer

Anon wrote: »

Yes - 60p Cos/CS, 30p voucher, £1.15 in T, net 25p.

Anon

Sorry - I missed the point:rotfl::rotfl:.:D:rotfl:

EDIT: That's the thing - people generally will get the point (the gist or bigger picture) whereas I will, first, get diverted to and concentrate on some tiny detail, especially one that is otherwise irrelevant - is still irrelevant to most people but now made relevant to me (such as the asterisking of "crap") - and, in my concentration on that tiny detail, or "flaw" in the text, I will initially miss the entire rest of the post or the main point of it.

Savvybuyer

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:I'm just laughing at my post 59777 now.:doh:

Savvybuyer

silvercar wrote: »

Hopefully Shannon has had a lot of professional help to get through the trauma. The fact that there is now a programme about it shouldn't harm her as she will already be aware that her mother's actions were so extreme.

We don't know what will "harm" people or not. And is trauma necessarily "harmful"?

Regarding the last sixteen words of what you say, I am wondering, as I always do - of course this is not the case - whether this is being put forward to me as a proposition. I always analyse people's words and, as ever, most people are not precise and exact (even about words posted to a website and not spoken conversation, words that can be edited and thought about to be right before being posted - people just don't work this way). For me though...:D (By the way, not every word I say is always absolutely right, whilst I try, sometimes I miss something (yes, even me!) or I do notice I've used the wrong word but I'm so tired that I can't be bothered to put it right, particularly as, the whole scheme of things, it was highly minor.)

Regarding the 16 words, you're assuming that it shouldn't harm her (but I suppose that is implicit in the word "shouldn't" - maybe it will, maybe it won't, again I bet I've picked on one word rather than the overall context) because "she will already be aware that her mother's actions were so extreme". Will she? How do we know such? Presumably, if she is aware, then the whole objection by members of her family falls as she is now aware of the debate over the programme "about her" and will be upset by it anyway (in line with according to her grandmother). I don't know that she will be aware her mother's actions were "extreme". Am I aware that her mother's actions were "extreme"? Does being so emotionally involved make someone's actions "extreme"? Maybe they are reasonable in the circumstances rather than extreme. So both of you are "guilty" over the word "will" and neither of you proving any causation:rotfl:. You're claiming that Sharon will know something and her grandmother is claiming that something "will" upset her - how does she know that it will do something, how does she know what affect it will or won't have on her before it does or does not do so? She may think that it will. But that's different from being able to prove that it will. How do you ever know in advance exactly how something is or might be going to affect someone or not affect someone or not? How does her grandmother know? Since emotional reaction to something is usually haphazard, irrational, impossible precisely to predict in advance and illogical. She may think there is a high likelihood, but maybe she does not know precisely what actually does upset her grandchild and this is different from saying it "will". And maybe something that should upset her grandchild might not ripen into actually doing so. I've felt before - things that should have upset me perhaps but haven't actually done so. And then things that, later, well after the events, I thought should not have done did. You don't know. Sometimes other's intention has a role but sometimes it is irrelevant (you feel upset even though you know they didn't mean it).

"This is going to upset you". Well, is it? How do you know in advance whether it is going to upset me or not? How do I know in advance how something is or isn't going to upset me or not until I have seen or experienced it? The other one is advice of "If you feel you might be offended..." Well, how do I know whether or not I might be offended in advance of knowing exactly what that thing is (and, if so, being offended by it). Anything might offend me at all (...or it might not), for any or no apparent reason. Therefore, as I do not know whether it might offend me, I will avoid everything about which I am advised this. Fortunately, I take it all with a pinch of salt and ignore it - and then get offended if indeed it did offend me (which is usually quite extremely rare). It's usually the things that they never give any advice about that go on to offend or distress me:rotfl::rotfl:. I think they have to give clear advice rather than vague words like "might":rotfl:.

The classic lines are advisories for films on the late night programme guide: "Contains content that might be unsuitable for some people". Or it might not be. So, totally useless and it doesn't provide any advice at all:rotfl::rotfl:. I want to know if something is going to be unsuitable for me or not. Not to be told that it might - therefore or might not - be as that's no guide at all:rotfl:. Such utter vagueness that is typical of most people's failure at achieving communication:D. Well, actually there is some communication - but it's one of no explicit communication at all, so I have no clue what they mean or don't mean: they may as well have said nothing at all as, because it provides no help whatsoever, for example specifically stating whether it is unsuitable for me or not, I conclude that, really, like so much in this life, it's not intended to communicate at all and therefore is to be safely ignored:cool:.