Elite 11+ shopping and chat thread part 2½

frequent

Avina_Ritelaff wrote: »

Somebody else must be selling it on then - Franny the Folder Flogger will go psycho - not surprised it is being sold on - they probs feel hard done by and want to recoup their loss. It aint worth 50p

Dearest Avina.

A proper 11+ member never buys anything from another on fleabay or any other media, we go get.

Tinyshoes

davemorton wrote: »

They have never stopped me selling my wares before

I actually had a bloke come to the door last week selling his. :eek:

I started to tell him there was probably nothing he had that I didn't already have for cheaper but had to change where my line was going as did not want to let on I had a huge stash.

£9.99 for oven gloves and literally day before I had picked some up for £2.75 in Sainsbobs, his cheapest item was a radiator brush for £2. He said he was ex army but I don't know if he was legit or not but I did give him about pound of change as it was cold to be out calling. His karma if he wasn't...:o

Tinyshoes

davemorton wrote: »

That's what Mr TS is going to look like by time his "free wet shave" comes round on Tuesday. :eek:

His family were making fun earlier think Sweeny Todd. :rotfl:

davemorton

Tinyshoes wrote: »

I actually had a bloke come to the door last week selling his. :eek:

I started to tell him there was probably nothing he had that I didn't already have for cheaper but had to change where my line was going as did not want to let on I had a huge stash.

£9.99 for oven gloves and literally day before I had picked some up for £2.75 in Sainsbobs, his cheapest item was a radiator brush for £2. He said he was ex army but I don't know if he was legit or not but I did give him about pound of change as it was cold to be out calling. His karma if he wasn't...:o

Obviously a French thing.

Savvybuyer

davemorton wrote: »

I wonder why it was deleted, I didnt think it was anything wrong. And shocked admin are about this time of night, they need to get to bed, they have work in the morning.

Glad you saw it though, I thought I was going mad and that I had not really posted it.

If you take it literally, that's the problem. All good people, including I suspect yourself, would never knowingly post anything that they thought was wrong and yet, at least in theory, could still get into trouble if someone else thinks that what they have posted is wrong. Whilst we may have a "good idea", it's impossible to know, in advance, precisely and exactly what any one person - or a group of people who collectively make decisions for a forum - might think was wrong.

I think not to worry about it and overthink it - not to take it literally. And, then, of course the one that gets me is "List of unacceptable behaviours" - "...This is not an exhaustive list". In other words, anything at all, whatsoever, whether or not related to the above (it does not specify that it does) that is completely unspecified and impossible to know about, as the list is not exhaustive.

(This is the view from a person who has Asperger's - a guessing game of prediction (as to what someone else's view might or might not be) and how do I know?, especially if you haven't stated it - most people seem to know what such a thing means - or, more to the point, most people do not read it in the first place and only the person who has Asperger's read the rules of conduct and then takes them literally and tries to comply with all of their, sometimes inconsistent and contradictory, requirements. It's not really meant to be read or taken seriously - they don't really say what they mean:rotfl:. And then of course my technical interpretation of each and every individual word. Really, it is common sense isn't it? Something that often or sometimes escapes the person who has Asperger's. What sense is it that is "common"? I would never knowingly do anything unacceptable, and I have (I think!) a good idea of what that might be, but I can never know, on every individual instance, of whether someone else might or might not consider it acceptable at all. Especially with such a vaguely worded document - and, yes, I do need an exhaustive and complete list of every possible occasion and situation that you are claiming to cover... Otherwise, how can I predict what the non-exhaustive, unspecified situations might or might not be?

Then we get to the law... the argument would be the reasonable adjustment that might be made, for a person who has Asperger's, is clear communication. However, something that fails to include every possible situation is, to some extent, always unclear so my requirement will never be able to be complied with! Which, quite frankly, is unacceptable!:rotfl: It's "unacceptable" to me. So, now I have put the behaviour of the policy writers into being "unacceptable behaviour". Even if it is perfectly acceptable to them - but then I guess they will interpret it how they like and "as it suits". Fortunately, I have not taken up a formal issue with this - it's just the outside world in general. I just get on with my life and I don't generally get into trouble it seems so I must be doing something right (or at least not doing something majorly wrong!):cool:.) I am not actually talking about this forum, I am talking about something else - and a number of outside organisations, all with the same sort of thing, that are not mse.com.

A lot of people have, it seems to me, fallen into this trap recently though haven't they? And things from over a decade ago being potentially retrospectively seen as being unacceptable. Probably they were always unacceptable - but things do get retrieved years later and, in the light of other events, may have become wrong (and they may always have been, to some extent, wrong). It's not autistic people struggling over this but behaviour of people more generally - and it's not a "struggle" if they should have known it was wrong. However, it does make me wonder because, one person says something they did was unacceptable and apologises and sometimes also resigns, yet I think "well, another person has done something like this and no-one is raising any issue about them so why are they still there?" Inconsistent application and superficially "when it suits" - however it is clearly because I am taking it out of context and trying to apply a bald rule, which strictly speaking, has I think been clearly contravened in its technical way, but which is in a different context or it would be considered inappropriate to apply it additionally to the situation I am thinking of. However, if it is not applied, in this inappropriate way, to that situation, then the application of the rule is inconsistent. And nowhere does it expressly state it applies "unless it is inappropriate". It was someone in the media. And yet, right under their nose, if they look at themselves, they have technically committed the very same breach as the person they are talking about.

Tinyshoes

davemorton wrote: »

Obviously a French thing.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I should have given him Euros :eek:

zippydooda

Tinyshoes wrote: »

I was lurking , refreshed the page and it was gone.

Still no snow down here, car said 2 degrees around 8pm bet the rest of you are all minus by now.

Nope. Don’t drop to a minus until 4pm

zippydooda

Savvybuyer wrote: »

I thought I had read your post properly and, then, on a second look, split seconds later, I am confused:rotfl:. You say "...it's rhetorical".

What is? Since you have posted two questions and then said "...it's rhetorical". Which one of them is rhetorical? Or is it both?:rotfl:

I am sometimes incorrect (very rarely though, I maintain). However, when I find out I am incorrect, I then immediately change my view or position or amend whatever it was on which I was incorrect, so that I am then straight away correct.

I am just correct though:rotfl::p. (I don't mean that literally. And there, what I am referring to as not being meant literally is the part that says "I am just correct though", not the symbols afterwards that are just a joke.)

I am extremely often correct - and I also have, from time to time, a nasty habit of being right:D (in the context that people at CS places and suchlike don't really like:):o). From my POV, I also maintain that, whilst I am not always correct, I do tend to be correct most often and more often than most people do, that tend to believe all sorts of assumptions and incorrect things and continue to believe things - or appear to me strongly to do so - despite all rational evidence to the contrary.

I also occasionally fall into correctness, in that I don't realise that I am correct and being correct but I say something - that most people, because I did not say it forcefully enough or with enough conviction to know I was right - then ignore but then, months or sometimes years later, in hindsight, it becomes clear (at least to me if no-one else) that I had actually been completely right at the outset. I have been "correct by accident" if you will. I didn't know the point I wanted to raise at the time and I didn't hit the actual central issue direct on the head (because I was unaware of what that was at the time) but I had said things around it that turn out to be right. I think I may just have this natural tendency of knowing things way in advance, when no-one else does.

I'll answer both as I can't resist, even though I am told not to. Will be very brief though (so that's all right). You can be correct on one thing and incorrect on another. You can be correct on two different things at the same time and, therefore, doubly correct.

Or some other permutation:D. Possibly:rotfl:.

or the shorter version
It’s not often I’m wrong but I’m right again:D

Avina_Ritelaff

frequent wrote: »

Dearest Avina.

A proper 11+ member never buys anything from another on fleabay or any other media, we go get.

I know I am kicking myself frequent - tbh I can afford to do without the money but there are poor folk on there who are probably just getting by.

frequent

Avina_Ritelaff wrote: »

I know I am kicking myself frequent - tbh I can afford to do without the money but there are poor folk on there who are probably just getting by.

Indeed, that is why the cash back Moma's and the glitchy soup go into the food bank.