Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread

emerald21

miss_corerupted wrote: »

DS is in Cubs now He's got all the Beavers badges so they have moved him up 6 months early. He's really pleased with himself.

I'm so glad its cooler today, I'm working at the Royal Welsh tomorrow

How old do,they have to be to start beavers please

aau1

emerald21 wrote: »

How old do,they have to be to start beavers please

pd........behave! :eek:

TrulyMadly

Mumto2monkeys wrote: »

Evening my lovelys :wave:

Hope we are all well and enjoying the summer sunshine. Summer hols here so the monkeys have been enjoying the water sprinkler... Only for a couple of minutes though.

I need advice please...

I bought this dress about a month ago... Much cheaper now though! For my hols but weve been invited to the races
Do we think this will be ok to wear, I've never been before ...



http://www.warehouse.co.uk/gb/sale/dresses/border-floral-halter-dress/026033.html?dwvar_026033_color=76&position=2#q=Dresses&prefn1=refinementColor&prefn2=size&srule=price-low-to-high&prefv1=Black&prefv2=10&start=2&categoryID=null

I love love love that dress....if my size was in stock I would have ordered it:o

I've never been to the races before but it looks great to me.....do you have to wear a host? Are you wearing heels?

It's gorgeous:)

A HAT........A HAT

TrulyMadly

purpledonkey wrote: »

Meant to say Silverspoon 1kg icing sugar is reduced to a £1 in Morries. Cannot bloody find any though

You might get it for 90p in A:cool:

TrulyMadly

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

OK, there's a breadth of knowledge on here. Anyone know the whereabouts of a list of actresses that have been in both EastEnders and in Casualty please?

Are you in a pub quiz?:D

Mumto2monkeys

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

What do you mean by "the races"? Normal races that would probably be OK, but if you are going into any enclosures or suchlike there can be rules such as over the knee and not showing shoulders.

TrulyMadly wrote: »

I love love love that dress....if my size was in stock I would have ordered it:o



I've never been to the races before but it looks great to me.....do you have to wear a host? Are you wearing heels?

It's gorgeous:)

A HAT........A HAT

Thank you

No sure really as regards to enclosures etc it's all a bit last minute.

I've got wedge sandals I was thinking of wearing as its afternoon into the evening and was going to take my black jacket just Incase shoulders are a no no...as for a hat I hadn't even thought of that :eek:

Savvybuyer

emerald21 wrote: »

Good Morning Di and everyone else I m the opposite , when I see a nice day I feel like doing loads of work outside :eek: I can t seem to relax anymore as I feel guilty I'm a funny !!!!!! lol.

. Anyway if any of you ladies want to lose half a stone in a few days tear down a well made garden fence loads of wood, and a mass of clinging ivy , then sort out the wood etc and put a new fence up. An easier one this time and the day before put a felt roof on a lean to and all that entails and you probably will

I have now lost a stone since hardly having any citric acid in the last two months plus the heat I suppose

This is now old, that I saw when I came to this thread probably five hours ago now, and I'm just coming back to it.

I think you're being very provocative there and, as an attempt to provoke me, you just ended up making me laugh:rotfl::rotfl:.

Six exclamations? Well, I won't get into asking you to clarify what you meant as I've decided it's clear - I think you mean the same word that I tried to post in the early hours on a now largely unread old part of this thread just so that no-one (hopefully) would see it in case my attempt was successful.

Oh, gosh, I've got racist word now:eek::eek:. Didn't have that before - I just had the word that isn't a swearword in America but is generally considered to be one here. My mind is awful - and the exclamations to that extent - rationally fortunately, not emotionally - have "made it worse". Had the original word been able to be used, which is the one I think you mean, then I would just have seen that and got that and never got anything else, which I now envisage, at all (and which I know you don't mean). I think you mean the Countdown word:D:rotfl:. Yes, the infamous Countdown on Channel 4 episodes in which the word has cropped up once or twice. I'm almost tempted to put an asterisk over the letter "o" in the programme name now:rotfl::rotfl:. I am rude, I'm sorry:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. Nonetheless, that would still have an innocent meaning - it just means "Countdown" - and it's "just" your mind (sometimes that's the problem:rotfl:) - however I don't think I'd even dare to write a "censored" version there even if, to some extent, there would be an element of double entendre to it (the innocent, really intended meaning of "Countdown" - obviously I would mean the TV programme name here).

Anyway, I first read your post and got just "the Countdown word" (obviously not "the Countdown word", the three words "the", "Countdown" and "word" but, you know, the word - it would be so much easier if I could simply use it:rotfl:) although, coming back two hours later, I've thought of the :eek::eek::eek: word afterwards but no harm done. And I hope no harm done by this post either:rotfl::rotfl:. Mind you, I don't know if you are black or African-Carribean, so you might then, if of younger age maybe, be using that word to describe yourself although then it would be five exclamations and not six (and it wouldn't cause me offence on a forum in my own home, seen alone, which I choose to read). However, as I'm unaware of your ethnicity - I'm making a (rather racist?) assumption that you are white, but simply because the vast majority of people in this country are white (whoops, I mistyped the word and didn't put letter "o":rotfl::rotfl:, gone back and corrected it before I post, see what I've got myself doing now, so automatic isn't it sometimes - and more so the more it is suppressed - but (I got off on tangents) since the vast majority of people in the UK which this website is based are white, it's most likely that you will be and therefore I tend to assume this is the case (we all make assumptions) although it's completely irrelevant to me what ethnicity anyone is and I'll treat people however they want, with respect for any cultural things, whilst also ensuring that anyone else present at the time is also being treated in a manner acceptable to them, I think I'm just setting out in textual form what is plain obvious in our society as to how we should always be, common sense (whatever that is:rotfl:).

I know there are (mainly older?) generations that disagree and think it is never acceptable, but if someone is black or African-Carribean, then I wouldn't have any problem with their use of "the word of otherwise racial connotations or what may be seen as a version of it" - it ends in a letter "a" and I object when people wrongly use "er" now - except that, if a black or African-Carribean person used the word on the street when I was in the company of my father or other white people then unfortunately it would very probably make me uncomfortable. I seem to be okay as long as I know or suspect everyone around me to be okay. Obviously use within a social group is fine, and everyone known to be okay, so that's why an exclusively black group, saying it while I was the only other person on the street, undoubtedly wouldn't cause offence as long as it wasn't shouted aggressively and was clear that people weren't physically asssaulting each other. It's all about context.

Unfortunately, I have been caused offence in the past by the "disguised" version of the "word of connotations related to race" when played out in gyms and shops, which in a way is wrong since it's not actually a use in a racist context at all and for me to be disapproving of a black person using it is therefore a bit wrong (although so too is the "censorship" therefore, which doesn't actually censor it) but, due to the nature that it means the word and even despite it being the five-letter version, unfortunately I don't know everyone around me in the gym to be okay with it and it makes me very uncomfortable there. I've even had problems with the first part of the word being used in the song Touch the Sky [radio edit] by Kanye West a while back, when in my gym, because of the word that it meant. And I had problems with both of the altered sound swearing in signature sound form (you - or I rather - can hear what sounds too close for to the words and it's clear which ones they mean) in the radio version of Faster, Stronger, Longer, whatever it's called, in the gym on each of several separate visits. It gives an annoying ring to the language because of the way in which the words in the radio version sound.

Whilst the use of the "more severe" of the two words, that is if it were played out unaltered, might possibly have a severe my heart sinks reaction (when played in an environment of strangers and in a gym and not a film in the cinema), due to that word (which is ordinarily mild for me now - though that's not the case for many people) having been historically more severe for me, the severe heart sinks reaction is taken away, so that it is reduced, however it still comes across as the word, albeit 'lessened' in a way slightly but instead of the potential "severe shock", now, in altered form, twists my heart from inside out so I'm not sure what is worse. It doesn't hit me (like the actual word might do) - instead it twists my heart right around in a very bad way, so doesn't have the severe "hit" impact (potentially - I mean it would not have any hit in the cinema) instead it's twists me from the inside and I'm not sure if that's not more severe. It causes me offence therefore, but in a different way (when I'm in some public places around strangers and not in a cinema, rock concert, rap concert, comedy club or nightclub (there's no logic to any of this!)).

This is actually something that, when I've heard these still offensive songs (that is in public places or at home when someone's put the TV on and my father has been there), I'm fed up of mulling over and over and thinking about whether it would cause me more offence or not and the precise impact of the different forms of the word (the blanked version, the signature sound version, the altered sound version, the backmasked version, the soundwave version (that I now have from yesterday - the description I've now applied to what I heard about a week ago), the partially blanked version, the fully bleeped version, the partially bleeped version, the muted version, the 'short space of silence' version (that, problematically, is the same length as the original word thus inexorably providing time for me to think it in the relevant (or irrelevant but now relevant) place), they all have different impacts and effects on me depending on the precise way in which they come across). So, yes, it's really really subjective and detailed (and undoubtedly precisely because I have Asperger's).

I've been fed up of considering whether the actual word would cause me offence more than the altered versions of the words or not. I mull and ruminate about it, and consider and reconsider it over and over and to the point of my upset. I just wish nowhere played any of this material out at all and that they would stop reminding me of it and causing this to happen. Anyway, I'll move on as I'm only describing what happens to me which isn't happening to me at this moment.

I've concluded a number of things:
1. That the material in the 'radio' versions, although it is not swear words, is swearing, since it amounts to like gesture swearing of throwing the word out towards me and that putting up a V-sign at someone (in the form of an "offensive" gesture) may still be considered or called by others to be "swearing" and therefore swearing does not have to involve the use of actual words. It's what something "says".

2. That the words "insinuation" of swearwords and "snide" are very apt in respect of some of this material (but "snide" defined as "offensive in an indirect way" - rather than derogatory (i.e. intentionally so) in an indirect way, as it does not have to be intended to cause offence. It is the effect not the intention that matters. Every use of swearwords on broadcasting that has ever caused anyone any offence was never intended to do so. Look up the definition of "insinuation" - I think it now describes accurately what it is to me. And it's not about swearwords, but about material that causes me offence (which could be anything, for any reason, and does not have to be words - although obviously there is a reason as to why, in some social situations, it causes me discomfort offence - because of what it is trying to hide or might be trying to hide which makes me uncomfortable for that reason. The "disguising", which truly isn't, is part of the offence. Every aspect to it - indeed - what it actually is and the way in which it comes across (not just what is said, but the manner and way it which it is said - or conveyed) affects or changes its physical impact or none on me (depending on whether I'm entirely alone or in company or not). On one of them, I was unhappy with the manner and way in which it was communicated when the word had not actually been said aloud. (I actually later had the uncensored sound version of the same song, presumably in error from a CD, with the actual word in it and, whilst it caused me the same initial reaction - of leaving me having to deal with the fact that either the word or something that meant it had been used - it didn't stand out and I managed not to be caused offence by the track. It was radio edit the previous week that caused me severe offence. I was not happy, that week and before I'd ever heard the original, that I had possession of the word as it was in my mind and that I'd got it despite the altered sound, which, to my serious discomfort, I felt that everyone around me would know what word it meant, because of how it sounded, and because I know what it means, and the altered sound was physically annoying and caused me to go into offence (extreme heart racing, serious discomfort) as I was annoyed by it at my weaker point of already having to deal with the use of the material.

The original was "like a film in the cinema" and turned out, ultimately, to be inoffensive as it was just a single use - although I think two uses of the same word and having me to have to deal with it for a second time within a short space of time might have caused me offence. But it was not, and it didn't ripen into offence for me. So, there's actually at least one song where, for me, the uncensored sound original is inoffensive but the radio version is offensive. There's two problems with the radio version. There's a second word that comes across from a prominent 'gaping hole' in the track which is clear and specific as to the word and cannot be pretended to mean anything else. That made me uncomfortable too, especially as it was the most prominent part of the song and put the exact and specific full word into my mind on hearing it played (I'm convinced there must still be some sound there for me to get the full original word which I do, there's something psychological about this and before I had ever heard the original. In the original, which actually got played from CD the following week, presumably in error, it is that word but I can hardly hear it at all, it's extremely indistinct and sounds a bit like another word, which is a completely neutral word instead, and I can pretend to my comfort that other people may mishear it as that. There is sadly no pretence about the radio version. It is clear, specific, obvious, stands out, cannot be pretended to mean anything else - everyone will know which word it is I feel (and it's all about my feeling), as I know, and the suggestion of it adds onto it an offensive message of "this is offensive" which also makes me uncomfortable. It adds that message, to my discomfort, only in places in which it causes me offence (i.e. those in which I'm listening with other people being around me at the time and in my physical presence) and does not do so in places in which I'm not caused offence (namely those in which I'm entirely alone and would be completely comfortable even if the full actual original word were to be used. However, I'm "comfortable" with the original on this occasion, since I can barely hear the word in it, but somehow - I don't know why, but it's illogical and about emotion and offence - the way things affect me - it's the radio version that I have problems with and causes me offence, when I'm around other people, even though I was around other people when the original went out and wasn't caused offence by it. But, then, I suppose, the radio version added an unwanted reminder of it being offensive and therefore telling everyone around me of its offensive nature made me uncomfortable with it and made it actually uncomfortable and actually really offensive to me. Let's just say the replacement material is more offensive than the actual unaltered original word. That's not necessarily my view and perhaps logically should not be the case (but, logically, nothing in words or relation to should be offensive or inappropriate at all) - however it is the way in which it was experienced by me. So, yes, on the basis of how I experienced it, the complete blanked material is more offensive than the use, in this way, of the actual word (just sung and very indistinctively).

3. That, if a warning was to be given, although that would be unacceptable as it would itself mean I'd have to disrupt my activities in a public place, it would now be a warning of "distressing themes", as that is what this is for me. I've considered this - it's clearly "distressing" to me even though it ought to be pictures of dead children on beaches that ought to distress me (apologies for any of this) but sadly, when shown 'just' on a TV screen, do not and, instead, it's not that but, quite wrongly and irrationally (but it's emotion so it is), it's words or meanings of material that sometimes (or often) has impact on me since they were created as bad to some extent for me in my childhood and, depending on location etc., sometimes have a physical effect on me that is experienced by and affects me personally. And it's just broadcasting/sound systems in certain environments and not people's actual use in normal life:rotfl::rotfl:. However, I no longer have any problem with any actual words on television in my own home (and I no longer live with my parents) regardless of time of day or night.

It's distressing "themes", the "theme" of the songs is distressing to me. And the "theme", now thinking that I have autism and don't get overall context or storyline to anything, the theme is solely and entirely the meaning that it means a specific word itself, the "theme" is the use (or equivalent) of a specific word and the use (or equivalent) of a specific word, there is no other theme to a "clean" version of a song which doesn't use "clean" words throughout but has these implications and meanings etc. and, when in blanked etc. form I lose sight of everything else in the song and only get the parts that are altered. I get no other message. Just a load of swearing that is in a place where I find it all offensive. The "theme" of the song in that form is now the swearing and the swearing is the only relevance and context of the song, together with the location in which I happen to be and the fact I'm with the people that are around me. I get the sentences that have the swearing in them and get diverted and distracted away from anything else. Indeed, when someone uses a swear in an actual sentence in normal life, I think research indicates that people tend to remember it. So, for me, the altered sound songs in public places are just problematically drawing attention to the things that I have problems with and giving me a problem with them. They are underlining the offensive nature, which is making me uncomfortable as a result of that being underlined and pointing out the very parts that are problematic or, otherwise, without it might not be (might have otherwise be "just like a film in the cinema" - but the radio versions are not: they are something worse).

(I even have problems with that three letter kick butt word that this site is silly and won't allow, but only when it is in censored sound form and don't have a problem at all with it when said out aloud in songs even in public - it's the American version not the UK one that was a little more - and is played on daytime radio uncensored in some songs and never causes me offence. Except that the repeated "hidden" one once did cause me extreme offence. I think it was Mack 10 and "Get your" [censored sound] "into it". That caused me, cumulatively actual offence, even though I've never yet had the actual word cause me offence - and I had a problem with the clean version of Eminem's "Smack That" when played in a nightclub once. It was uncomfortable to be getting the word with that hidden nature.)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I'm sorry, I'm just laughing now, at how things come across and affect me for some reason. It is. The disguising makes me uncomfortable (and therefore offence). I'd point out that seeing asterisks on a page does not always do so. I was always okay with that in the past and, indeed, it was the first time that I saw the actual "f" word, unexpectedly, in some text, many years ago, that my heart sank very mildly and then I recovered. Now, the asterisked version, which used to 'protect' me as I wasn't seeing the actual word, often I just find it annoying (or extremely funny if done deliberately with intent to try to annoy me). I know. I seem to actually find it annoying when there's no intent, and when there is intent, I don't:rotfl::rotfl:. I can't help it - it just the way things cause me to react (or don't). I can see the intent, or lack of. But it still doesn't stop me from getting uncomfortable - I can try to make myself comfortable by thinking "but they don't intend it". but it only goes so far and doesn't ultimately really work. And I shouldn't have to be thinking myself to be comfortable or to try to be, as then it's already not neutral and I've been affected by it.

Yes, the theme. The "theme" is the swearwords that are made an issue by the edits. And that's all - it makes no difference what the word means in the context of the sentence, just the fact that it means the word - or whatever I think of (usually the most uncomfortable word for me in the context of the surrounding material) - except that altered parts that still carry a sexual material are worse because of that and even more inappropriate. Then the theme is that the song is still going on about that particular thing. The overall tone, message and theme of the song remains, for that environment, inappropriate (where is repeated use) and, where it's a single use, the content is still offensive in that place, for example the safe for work version of Outkast's Ms Jackson that caused me a heart sink whilst hearing it at work with a female colleague happening to be present - I felt that (this was a long time ago now, but right at the start of my series of being caused offence every single time) at the material in between the words "the" and "all" in the song and therefore wasn't safe for work. However Fatboy Slim's Gangsta Trippin radio version, I avoided offence from that - several years earlier - that is the first memory I have - by switching it off the radio every time it came on whenever either or both of my parents were present. That's the start of the problem in a way (although at that time it wasn't a problem, since I only ever heard it whilst at home and could and did switch it off every time - but only because I'd heard the radio version of the song (and only ever that - never heard the original until 15 years later) on the radio on previous occasions when I happened to be listening safely with headphones and therefore knew of the upcoming content in order to be able to switch it off before it got there (I was never given any broadcast warning about it)).

Theme: definition

"the subject of a talk, a piece of writing, a person's thoughts, or an exhibition; a topic."

Yes it is. The subject matter is the swearing that causes me offence.
It's "talking" about that, whether through use of words or not. It is the "topic" of the song, or what the songs, at any point, contain.

"an idea that recurs in or pervades a work of art or literature."

Yes, it is, again. An idea that occurs in the piece of art (namely music), namely the idea of the swearwords that I have a problem with in that environment.

Continued...next post (I ran into overflow:eek::rotfl:)...

Savvybuyer

Everytime I look up dictionary definitions they just describe precisely for me what the situation really is. I look up the word "dirty" and bring the "clean" versions within the meaning of it. I look up "clean" and the so-called "dirty" versions fit for me within that:rotfl::rotfl:. They (the "dirty" versions) are clean copies of the song. Clean copy: a version without editing notations. Whch is precisely what those "dirty" versions are that the "clean" versions are not, that the "clean" versions are "inappropriate to the environment which they are being played" (as they cause me offence in those environments and therefore are inappropriate for that reason as it's never appropriate or acceptable to upset someone unless only you are a doctor giving a patient a diagnosis of a terminal illness and no other context at all justifies it for me. That's the only circumstance in which it is ever 'acceptable' to cause upset to someone and anything else lacks any justification completely, especially something as seemingly unworthy as a pop song, as it carries no justification of learning or anything seriously worthy and in the public interest and therefore does not have any defence if it causes me upset - and I don't wish to encounter it, against my consent, and unsolicited, in that environment, which I only attempt to go to carry on normal life activities and not to be caused upset/offence. I don't go to a shop or restaurant to be uncomfortable (or to have something that causes me to have to leave, that isn't a ridiculous expensive price with no APG back:rotfl:, and regardless of whether or not it has caused me upset up to that point). It's reasonable that I should be able to go to shops and restaurants in my life. The "clean" versions are inappropriate to their environments, and point out their own continued inappropriateness, and are, therefore, dirty. So, yet again, the definitions just fit for me and they don't seem to make many clean versions of songs at all these days - instead create a lot of songs that organisations label as being "clean" when, in my view and according to my definition, they are not. And just because they label as "explicit" doesn't mean that it is, to me. To me, it's only explicit if it is actually talking about sex. Otherwise, it isn't - and moreover some meanings of swearwords in phrases are ambiguous (capable of more than one meaning) and therefore not explicit. They are not explicit, i.e. they are not clear. Meaning they are not clear as to which meaning they mean and therefore that use of swearing is not explicit.

However, the "clean" versions are explicit to me as they are often precisely clear as to what they mean, i.e. clear as to which word was originally used which then later turns out to have been the case. (Or sometimes they are more explicit, as they put a seeming sexually explicit meaning into the material when they wasn't any in the first place. I sometimes like them even better for that reason but only when I'm in an environment, namely entirely listening alone, where sexually explicit content does not cause me offence. Only because sex itself is acceptable in the confines of a private home between adults who are consenting and within the boundaries as provided by the law. Which is why I can listen to the clean (which isn't) version of Outkast when entirely alone at home without being caused offence just as I can listen to the dirty (which isn't) version of the same song in that same environment - but doubtless why the communication, fully made in the so-called "clean" version too (and always was) of the lyric causes me offence if I'm at work with a young lady present because I would not myself go up to her and make such a sexual comment towards her in my presence (so anyone else doing so, whether a male colleague in my presence a situation that never happened, or a singer from the radio would, and does, cause me offence. That was doubtless why I felt my sink heart sink slightly (back then) at the point in the song where the word used to be - and may as well still be, as its in my mind, shared, I fear (fear a slightly strong word but perhaps not by a great amount here), between the people around me present, and communicates the same, in that listening context, uncomfortable (offensive) message and is just about the same, I feel, as if the word had been used.

I think - although I've no experience of it happening so I can't tell - if the actual word had been used it would have been slightly more severe but that I may have been able to laugh it off at its inappropriateness somewhat thereafter, unlike the 'mild' (at that time) offence from the radio version which was not mitigated. It's still a song of sexual nature, even in radio form, and, in retrospect, I don't think it's appropriate for children either, namely daytime radio, as they might (indeed will and do) know the word already, albeit not know it, up until that point, in the context of the sentence in the song on the radio. So, I think, it tells them about sex at an inappropriate young age at a point at which they will know the "swearword" itself and therefore still fill in and get the message. And, if as a society we were pretending they do not, I think neurotypicals are deceiving themselves in order to provide their own comfort which - the kids - they know it - does not truly exist. (I do find people generally, sometimes, are able to hold to fictions and hypocrisies that are not completely true. It's easier for people that tell white lies, in a rest of society that does so, to be able to accept fiction and not true, which is doubtless also part of the reason why the "truth" (namely swearwords themselves) is not allowed in parts of society. Because the truth hurts and causes offence. So, it's reasonable therefore, to that extent, to suppress it. But I can't deny the truth of what these songs mean, perhaps because I'm an Asperger's person and can't accept a pretence or falsehood that isn't really true - it pretends that I don't know what it means but I do. I can't subscribe to a pretence only truth and that truth hurts me too, because swearing has been made swearing in my society and because of the taboo (only reflected and reminded of, compounding the matter even more for me - I also don't wish to be reminded of the taboo and that also makes me uncomfortable at it pointing out the taboo nature to the words that it means) and because the true meaning, the swearword that it is or appears to mean, is uncomfortable to me (in that environment where everyone around me, to my discomfort, must surely know - I can't pretend they don't, based on my own knowledge - what is meant, namely the swearword and no other meaning for me).

To clarify, the so-called "dirty" version, one small part of which is explicit but not necessarily dirty to me, is dirty if it were (which it's never been) to be played at work around me when I am around a female colleague because I suspect that it might cause me offence there, because of its sexual explicit nature and because of what it means, which is the same sexually explicit nature that the so-called "clean" version has for me. So, the "dirty" version, I think, would be dirty if played at work (gosh this is making it sound exciting:rotfl: - dirty:D:rotfl::rotfl:) since it would probably also cause me offence there, but is clean in my own home when I'm listening alone. Whereas the so-called "clean" version is still dirty at work (as inappropriate to the environment causes me offence - it did, made me heart sink because of what it meant - I could not help it, my heart sank) in the company of the female colleague, as well as having an explicit meaning whether or not the content is itself explicit. I'm amazed when I hear of people saying they bought an album were surprised at its content (I'm surprised at their surprise) and that they didn't realise it when it was on the radio, as its content was always clear to me from the radio from word go. If anything, I'm surprised at how tame the originals turn out to be and they turn to be to mild and not saying anything at all of the nature of what the radio suggested. And the originals have never yet been played in any inappropriate place for me so have never yet managed to cause me offence. The "clean" version has - and it's that one small part that caused me the heart sink.

"Sanitisation" I've heard it called. I don't see how, when "sanitisation" is supposed to mean to make it less and not to make it more severe. Though I think that Outkast one was more or less the same - it's other songs that have been made worse (such as the Scissor Sisters one, the album version of which caused me no offence but the radio version caught me on at least three separate airings and did so, extremely, on each one). I've had other songs needlessly cause me offence though, at points at which the original later turned out not even to be swearing.

And others (a Green Day song) that, whilst the word was lessened, the radio version had the equivalent of two uses of that 'lessened' material, which amounted to probably the same as one use of the original material, as one word that doesn't cause me offence was changed into appearing to be another word, which sometimes does. It was turned into the equivalent to lessened version of that, but coupled with what seemed the second lessened use - that eventually turned out to be the actual word there that would have not been lessened if that had been played - amounted to the same thing. Original: an inoffensive, no impact on me word (as not one that was swearing when I was a child in the 1980s) and a severe word (in the gym context) - may have given me a severe physical hit. Radio version (that was played): appeared to be the "severe" word and caused me lessened offence, followed by a second lessened use (altered sound material as opposed to punch of actual word) of the word that turned out to be that same actual word - the two offences together amounting to the same as a severe impact from no impact and then one severe impact of the original (that wasn't played). Cumulatively the same. They turned the "sometimes-derogatory depending on the context" word for gay people into appearing to be the other real F word (and they left the "f" sound at the beginning but removed the entirety of the rest, so it came across as that and I thought it was, and lessened offence as not actual word). The word for gay people has never caused me offence - I've heard it safely in the classic song "Fairytale of New York" on the radio in uncensored form. However, the change to appear to the other F word derivative, which is/was swearing for me and was, to some extent, created as extremely severe for me in my childhood, did cause me offence. Followed by the same root word in a sentence that was unchanged by the blank and only conveyed and communicated the full original meaning, to my discomfort, to me whilst in a non-concert environment around strangers.

I was surprised (but not in any negative way), when about twelve years ago, I eventually heard the original at home and the word turned out 'merely' to be the word that's the same as the one in the Fairytale... song that has never caused me offence there, even when played in public (I did have that in old Woolies once and didn't cause me any offence, uncensored) has not caused me offence, that should never have been blanked as it would not have caused me offence had it not been done so and did cause me offence when it was, because of what it seemed to be. The other word - the real "F" word - would have to be changed to another word in some environments, as any version at all is going to cause me a physical impact of any kind. That only added (albeit lessened because not the full impact of the actual word) to the offence caused by the coming across of a derivative of the same word in place of the use of inoffensive material for me in the original song (the version that wasn't played). It comes to something when something turns out not to have been, but manages to cause me offence at the time because it is changed into appearing to a version of some other word which, in that environment, is problematic to me. The original would not have caused me offence there (I did not know from the censored version that it was that word, so the censorship there was effective... and managed to change it into offensive material) although the original would have caused me, probably, severe offence in the gym (except that I was not caused offence at all when an uncensored version of another song with far more uses of the same real actual F word was played out once when I was in an independent record shop - I think importantly no-one else was around, just purely by chance, and the only person there was a young male shop assistant who had obviously put the song on himself and therefore I knew him to be okay with it - therefore the only person around me was, I felt, okay and so was I). That said, back to the Green Day song, the censored version caused me offence at the two parts instead of one.

:rotfl::rotfl:My going on about it!

Righto, just skip (you didn't:D:cool:), next...!

Enterprise_1701C

TrulyMadly wrote: »

Are you in a pub quiz?:D

No, but it is revision for a quiz

Enterprise_1701C

Mumto2monkeys wrote: »

Thank you

No sure really as regards to enclosures etc it's all a bit last minute.

I've got wedge sandals I was thinking of wearing as its afternoon into the evening and was going to take my black jacket just Incase shoulders are a no no...as for a hat I hadn't even thought of that :eek:

You need to find out a bit more - where are you going?