Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread part 2½

nettiebobs

pandoraskids wrote: »

I'm a little nervous about doing target shops in case I can't print the vouchers but, as you suggest, I may go to A a little more frequently during the next few weeks as I did manage to collect more wombles last week than I have for a long time. So, small, frequent shops for me, I think

Yes, but if you can't print a voucher off, a quick phone call to @'s customer services and they will send you the amount on a gift card. Assuming that the APG is ending it matters not if they have our address.

nettiebobs

SweetnSavvy wrote: »

I had one occasion when something wasn’t delivered and just told the buyer that they had to wait until Royal Mail had paid out. (Worded it nicely, of course). Now I always put at bottom of eBay description

“Proof of postage always obtained” in the unlikely event of non-delivery I will supply the buyer with a copy of the proof of postage receipt to enable them to reclaim from Royal Mail.

SnS

Don't quote me, but I think it has to be the sender of the item that has to claim for non delivery, but putting those words may make potential 'scammers' take note.

Savvybuyer

Savvybuyer wrote: »

Just looking around again - this is one of the sources of my confusion[...]

[...]

I just don't want to be potentially printing off my vouchers on 3rd October (or 2nd as not completely sure that I can go onto the date itself) and having them say expiry date 30th or 31st October, only to get to the store in mid- or late-October and be told that, despite that, they all ceased to be valid on 3rd October.

I think this is one of those Asperger syndrome (:doh:, that chestnut again) things about clear, direct and absolutely precise communication. I think they do mean the last date on which you can claim vouchers is 3rd October itself, presumably at a split second to midnight (to avoid confusion about which day midnight itself is on) - in other words we have the entire of that date itself on which to claim but none of 4th October or afterwards.

The APG site now includes "We want to let you know that we've decided to close Asda Price Guarantee from 3rd October 2018.
You can continue to check your shop as normal here until the 3rd of October..." (my emphasis).

This has however, for me, set up a contradiction. As it is "until" 3rd October, which I presume includes 3rd October itself, in that case "from" doesn't mean "from and including", instead it now means "from 4th October". If it is closed "from" 3th October, in other words from and including that date, 3rd October, then you could not claim on 3rd October itself at all. It must mean you can check up to, and on, 3rd October but the scheme is closed from 4th October.

Nonetheless, it is up to (but maybe not including, who knows?) 10% unclear as, with the scheme being closed "from" 3rd October, it is therefore closed on 3rd October meaning you can't claim vouchers on that date itself.

It is, for me, not entirely and completely clear with no doubt whatsoever and is, at least to some minor extent, ambiguous. Presumably, if we are to look at the law, we are to adopt the most favourable interpretation to the consumer, which is closure immediately after the very end of 3rd October, and begin a lawsuit if they close it on 3rd October itself not allowing us to claim on that date. But I digress.

I think it is because I am concentrating on the detail of the words "from" and "until" and getting hung up on those, whereas the non-autistic person could probably clearly see the scheme was ending on 3rd October, at the very end of, and that you could claim until (and including) 3rd October as stated. Therefore, "from" means "from, but not including". But then I am getting hung up on the meaning of "from" again:rotfl:.

It's just this communication, or problem of communication, thing again - of me seeing most things in a different from typical way - and interpreting things from base up literalism first rather htna in a rounded, context, 'bigger picture' way. The non-autistic person can clearly see (I think) you can check as normal until 3rd October and that's just all the matters - they would take it to be including that date itself (and wouldn't really think about whether it did or did not). It's just that, for me, there is still this slight ambiguity that it could mean something else. And, for me, any ambiguity at all, no matter how slight, slender and tiny trace remnant, makes things not completely and fully clear at all and therefore completely unclear and unfathomable. I don't know what they mean. I think they mean that, but I do not know. I think let's just strip out the detail, go to the big picture and assume they do mean what I think they do:cool:. Nonetheless, I am still probably going to claim everything left on 2nd October just in case and to be completely sure:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. If I get any receipts after 2nd October, in other words on 3rd October, I will try them on 3rd October just in case they work and, if they do, they do and, if not, not. Clearly, we know, 4th October, if things remain as they currently are, with the scheme closing, they won't work.

Given my 10% of unclearness, I am 90% sure - in other words I am not sure at all since, to be "sure", I have to be completely sure - that we will be able to check receipts on 3rd October itself as the last date. (This is the element of "black or white" - another AS thing - again. Either I am sure or I am not. One or the other - black or white. No in between gradience or grey area. So, any doubt at all, puts me on one side only namely in complete doubt. I don't have this dimmer switch of different settings - I am a light switch of either completely on or completely off. I see things as concrete and either one thing or another whereas, in this society, this imperfect world, sometimes - or indeed often or indeed nearly all of the time, things are not so clear-cut and it is elements of grey. Or maybe grey and different colours within the grey that no-one else can see or has any names for if you are a truly tetrachromatic woman:rotfl:*.)


*Grass is not green. It is green with bits of different greens, "...pinks, reds, oranges, gold in the blades and the tips, and gr[e]y-blues and violets and dark greens, browns and emeralds and viridians, limes and many more colors..." in it (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b-YN-j1euWQJ:nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-like-see-a-hundred-million-colors.html). And, I think, it is some other set of colours to some other tetrachromatic woman that has a different fourth cone receptor but does not have the fourth cone receptor that this person has. Water is very colourful indeed - there are lots of colours in water, caused by reflections and other things. It isn't what the vast majority of people see it to be. Like most people, I can't see that it is very colourful at all. But it is (since I don't doubt that she is telling the truth). I used to believe the falsehood that water wasn't colourful, based on what I can see- but that didn't make that falsehood true. Now I believe the truth (or at least what I now believe to be the truth), namely that it is colourful. This may be thought of as being a crank idea until I mention about tetrachromacy and explain why - then it may not seem so cranky at all - however, I now think the truth is that water is extremely colourful and the truth is constant regardless of any person's beliefs and the truth being the truth doesn't make it untrue at all. Truth - "Water is extremely colourful". In other words, contrary of what I believed to be truth before, before I came to know what I now know. Anyway, I have gone off on a tangent, into these interesting (to me) things again.

Anyway - if someone argues that grass is green in future, I am going to argue that it isn't. And then point out the evidence from the tetrachromatic woman to try to prove that it isn't. Unfortunately, crossing an Asperger's syndrome person with the truth, or rather with lies that you pretend are true, I think I will win that one again. (Actually I don't think people have been lying and pretending that grass is green when it isn't even though, very often indeed, people do lie and pretend, even if the "lies" are socially-required white lies - instead people generally honestly do believe that grass is green, based on what they can see and perhaps on also on what they have learnt in school, such as what "green" is, when you were learning what colours were and learning words for various colours. As ever, I have followed the truth - and changed my opinion whenever I now believe it to have been wrong, so that I keep up what what I believe to be true. Most other people seem to believe something and then, no matter how much rational eveidence and argument you put to show it to be wrong, continue to believe the falsehood and lie no matter what. Of course there is also a technical accuracy and pedanticness in this - to my now insistence that grass isn't green. It's a technical thing. Most people see it as green. For all intents and purposes, for most therefore, it is. And whatever colour it is doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. However, of course I have to be technically right and, if it's technically not green even though nearly everyone sees it that way, I will give the truth that it is not. However, perhaps it's not merely technical at all - that is, to the tetrachromatic woman. It clearly isn't green to her and she's never seen it that way.) All these last two paragraphs, including this one, were just to explain my last point lol:rotfl::rotfl:. The point where I ended with the asterisk, before this footnote of explanation. I was just explaining what I meant by "Or maybe grey and different colours within the grey that no-one else can see or has any names for if you are a truly tetrachromatic woman." So, there we are - the explanation:doh:. There are not just grey areas anymore - but "grey and different colours within the grey that no-one else can see or has any names for" areas. Which, I suppose, makes that itself grey:rotfl:. Or maybe with the numerous extra shades of colour etc.

Freewheeling

I found the baby cereal in Tesco Stafford today. It was in the 'Caribbean' section rather than the baby food aisle. I also got the Fuel granola :-). £3 a box in Tesco!!!

As we were passing Lidl we popped in and picked up 6 bottles of the merlot and also the apricots. Now we're driving back down to Devon with a lot of wine and a very soggy tent!

mhoc

Freewheeling wrote: »

I found the baby cereal in Tesco Stafford today. It was in the 'Caribbean' section rather than the baby food aisle. I also got the Fuel granola :-). £3 a box in Tesco!!!

As we were passing Lidl we popped in and picked up 6 bottles of the merlot and also the apricots. Now we're driving back down to Devon with a lot of wine and a very soggy tent!

Drat, and I was in Stafford on Wednesday - mind you I don't think I would have looked on the Caribbean section.
This might explain my own little stores lack of baby cereal - don't think its big enough to have a Caribbean section although it does have a tiny ethnic foods aisle.

Sarahdol75

Afternoon all.

Raining here in North Wales.

zippydooda

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I think this is one of those Asperger syndrome (:doh:, that chestnut again) things about clear, direct and absolutely precise communication. I think they do mean the last date on which you can claim vouchers is 3rd October itself, presumably at a split second to midnight (to avoid confusion about which day midnight itself is on) - in other words we have the entire of that date itself on which to claim but none of 4th October or afterwards.

The APG site now includes "We want to let you know that we've decided to close Asda Price Guarantee from 3rd October 2018.
You can continue to check your shop as normal here until the 3rd of October..." (my emphasis).

This has however, for me, set up a contradiction. As it is "until" 3rd October, which I presume includes 3rd October itself, in that case "from" doesn't mean "from and including", instead it now means "from 4th October". If it is closed "from" 3th October, in other words from and including that date, 3rd October, then you could not claim on 3rd October itself at all. It must mean you can check up to, and on, 3rd October but the scheme is closed from 4th October.

Nonetheless, it is up to (but maybe not including, who knows?) 10% unclear as, with the scheme being closed "from" 3rd October, it is therefore closed on 3rd October meaning you can't claim vouchers on that date itself.

It is, for me, not entirely and completely clear with no doubt whatsoever and is, at least to some minor extent, ambiguous. Presumably, if we are to look at the law, we are to adopt the most favourable interpretation to the consumer, which is closure immediately after the very end of 3rd October, and begin a lawsuit if they close it on 3rd October itself not allowing us to claim on that date. But I digress.

I think it is because I am concentrating on the detail of the words "from" and "until" and getting hung up on those, whereas the non-autistic person could probably clearly see the scheme was ending on 3rd October, at the very end of, and that you could claim until (and including) 3rd October as stated. Therefore, "from" means "from, but not including". But then I am getting hung up on the meaning of "from" again:rotfl:.

It's just this communication, or problem of communication, thing again - of me seeing most things in a different from typical way - and interpreting things from base up literalism first rather htna in a rounded, context, 'bigger picture' way. The non-autistic person can clearly see (I think) you can check as normal until 3rd October and that's just all the matters - they would take it to be including that date itself (and wouldn't really think about whether it did or did not). It's just that, for me, there is still this slight ambiguity that it could mean something else. And, for me, any ambiguity at all, no matter how slight, slender and tiny trace remnant, makes things not completely and fully clear at all and therefore completely unclear and unfathomable. I don't know what they mean. I think they mean that, but I do not know. I think let's just strip out the detail, go to the big picture and assume they do mean what I think they do:cool:. Nonetheless, I am still probably going to claim everything left on 2nd October just in case and to be completely sure:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:. If I get any receipts after 2nd October, in other words on 3rd October, I will try them on 3rd October just in case they work and, if they do, they do and, if not, not. Clearly, we know, 4th October, if things remain as they currently are, with the scheme closing, they won't work.

Given my 10% of unclearness, I am 90% sure - in other words I am not sure at all since, to be "sure", I have to be completely sure - that we will be able to check receipts on 3rd October itself as the last date. (This is the element of "black or white" - another AS thing - again. Either I am sure or I am not. One or the other - black or white. No in between gradience or grey area. So, any doubt at all, puts me on one side only namely in complete doubt. I don't have this dimmer switch of different settings - I am a light switch of either completely on or completely off. I see things as concrete and either one thing or another whereas, in this society, this imperfect world, sometimes - or indeed often or indeed nearly all of the time, things are not so clear-cut and it is elements of grey. Or maybe grey and different colours within the grey that no-one else can see or has any names for if you are a truly tetrachromatic woman:rotfl:*.)


*Grass is not green. It is green with bits of different greens, "...pinks, reds, oranges, gold in the blades and the tips, and gr[e]y-blues and violets and dark greens, browns and emeralds and viridians, limes and many more colors..." in it (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b-YN-j1euWQJ:nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/what-like-see-a-hundred-million-colors.html). And, I think, it is some other set of colours to some other tetrachromatic woman that has a different fourth cone receptor but does not have the fourth cone receptor that this person has. Water is very colourful indeed - there are lots of colours in water, caused by reflections and other things. It isn't what the vast majority of people see it to be. Like most people, I can't see that it is very colourful at all. But it is (since I don't doubt that she is telling the truth). I used to believe the falsehood that water wasn't colourful, based on what I can see- but that didn't make that falsehood true. Now I believe the truth (or at least what I now believe to be the truth), namely that it is colourful. This may be thought of as being a crank idea until I mention about tetrachromacy and explain why - then it may not seem so cranky at all - however, I now think the truth is that water is extremely colourful and the truth is constant regardless of any person's beliefs and the truth being the truth doesn't make it untrue at all. Truth - "Water is extremely colourful". In other words, contrary of what I believed to be truth before, before I came to know what I now know. Anyway, I have gone off on a tangent, into these interesting (to me) things again.

Anyway - if someone argues that grass is green in future, I am going to argue that it isn't. And then point out the evidence from the tetrachromatic woman to try to prove that it isn't. Unfortunately, crossing an Asperger's syndrome person with the truth, or rather with lies that you pretend are true, I think I will win that one again. (Actually I don't think people have been lying and pretending that grass is green when it isn't even though, very often indeed, people do lie and pretend, even if the "lies" are socially-required white lies - instead people generally honestly do believe that grass is green, based on what they can see and perhaps on also on what they have learnt in school, such as what "green" is, when you were learning what colours were and learning words for various colours. As ever, I have followed the truth - and changed my opinion whenever I now believe it to have been wrong, so that I keep up what what I believe to be true. Most other people seem to believe something and then, no matter how much rational eveidence and argument you put to show it to be wrong, continue to believe the falsehood and lie no matter what. Of course there is also a technical accuracy and pedanticness in this - to my now insistence that grass isn't green. It's a technical thing. Most people see it as green. For all intents and purposes, for most therefore, it is. And whatever colour it is doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. However, of course I have to be technically right and, if it's technically not green even though nearly everyone sees it that way, I will give the truth that it is not. However, perhaps it's not merely technical at all - that is, to the tetrachromatic woman. It clearly isn't green to her.)

I agree

Anon

For W, you have probably claimed already but Galbani cheese adds £4 to your shop if you haven't got them free on Shopm yet.

These two, a free mag and free coffee got me a free newspaper .

HTH

Anon

Anon

Savvybuyer wrote: »

In fact I'd say it's probably the opposite. Even though, I agree, psychologically the fact the system is ending is making me just shop to get rid of APGs at A's prices, without any comparison being done, rather than doing APG shops for another APG. This is even though I'd still have time between now and 3rd October to check the receipts and use another voucher by its expiry:huh:. If anything we should perhaps be using the APG even more during the time left. We should now be going to A more often, to try to get far more wombles (hoping that the percentage that offer vouchers remains around normal and that getting more receipts gives more vouchers) - then allowing us to claim and have more vouchers by 3rd October that we can then have available to use during the rest of the month. As we can't claim for new receipts on 16th October (or whenever) to get vouchers to spend around that time and to the end of the month, we need more receipts by 3rd October, to claim them early and then be able to use them during the same period.

In fact, it seems the APG site has been down/has been slow/difficult at times to log into and it has made me wonder whether more people are starting to use the APG. For the first time in many months, we have had promotion of the APG through the past week. I suspect most customers, if a few weeks ago, had been asked about the APG, they would have been likely to have replied "Is that still going?" Because of the lack of advertising and promotion of it, as A 'paused' doing so several months ago, I think it would not be regularly in the mind of people generally. They weren't being reminded of it by advertising. It's likely that, while the scheme continued and was never dropped, people generally forgot it exists. Now, however, this has been massive promotion of the APG, and advertising of it in places where money cannot buy, due to all the internet media coverage of A stopping the scheme. (For example, the APG site has now been linked to from the BBC's UK site, that doesn't carry advertising. And if more people than would have been the case before are now landing on the APG site due to clicking on the link and being referred from the BBC, maybe that is part of why the site is seemingly a bit more slow at times?) You cannot fail to draw attention to something by mentioning it. The stopping of the scheme has created promotion of the scheme, and I wonder now whether we might see slightly more people claiming on the APG, now that they are aware of it once more, and trying to do so before the scheme ends (assuming A doesn't have a change of mind if it sees a last minute spike in people using it, due to the media coverage of the scheme being dropped itself giving coverage of the current existence of it).

For me, too, sometimes the lack of mention of something mentions it - and often does so even more than actively mentioning it (by drawing more attention to it than if it was simply mentioned). It is not what is said, but what is not said that says things. Silence speaks louder than words. It speaks volumes what is not included in some statements sometimes.

I agree - many customers forgot it was there as they stopped advertising it.

If A wanted to reboot the APG, then closing it and creating a surge in use would be a way to see whether customers noticed and loved it like they claim to do. Their Twitter suggested that the increased use, due to the announced closure, had caused the technical issues (:huh: ).

If A wanted to capitalise on it now, as the guarantor of low prices in the big supermarkets, due to public demand they could backtrack and cancel the closure :A. Another round of free promotion through all major news outlets and websites for no cost .

Of course, we would support them .

Anon

Savvybuyer

I am definitely seeing the world in a different light (or maybe dark within the light with bits of other light:rotfl:) now I have seen the evidence of the functionally tetrachromat woman (it is believed, including by myself, that men are unable to inherit the right chromosone mix to be tetrachromatic). I am now "seeing" grass as not green, by imagining the colours in it that I cannot see. See, look at that? [Points outside at some grassed lawn.] Not, er, green... Of course not - with this summer, it is parched and not green. But we know we mean - I was talking about grass in normal situations (or what have been, up to now, normal) and how it looks green. Looks green. But it's not. Of course, she has 'just' four receptors - there's more beyond that that butterflies with 15 can see. So, green is even more colourful than what she sees:eek:. However, you might think the butterfly can see far more - but other things are missing. So, no living thing sees everything that exists. Ultraviolent light. Same with hearing of course with the range of audio - some animals that go up the scale can't hear some things that most of us can at the lower end of the scale.