Forum Home» The Money Savers Arms

Elite: Is this table taken please? - Page 826

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Money Savers Arms


Last ooorders!… We’re sorry but for now, due to resources, we need to close the Money Savers Arms including Discussion Time.

It’s not easy to write this. We love the forum, but we also have a job to do to protect it, our users and MoneySavingExpert, and at the moment, with all our resources focused on Coronavirus information, and all the team at home, we don’t feel we have the resources to do a good enough job.

For four months, we’ve been struggling to cope with the huge volumes of messages we’ve been getting from Forumites – many of whom are in desperate and dire straits with their finances. The team have been working all hours to try and keep on top of it. At first we thought it’d be a short sharp spike, but it isn’t, it’s continuing, so we have had some difficult choices to make about prioritisation.

Unfortunately in, and likely because of, these stressful times, the Forum team have also been receiving an increasing number of complaints about posts made on the Money Savers Arms and Discussion Time. The team have done what they can to try and walk the tightrope of balancing all the various interests, but for now we need to draw a line under this and temporarily close this Board, so we can keep the key, MoneySaving boards – where people are supporting each other through this crisis - running smoothly.

We know this board is important to you, but as the MSE stance has been forbearance throughout this crisis, now we ask that of you. We’re sorry. Of course you can post on other boards, but we’d ask you to stick to the subjects of those boards, and not use them as a surrogate Money Savers Arms or Discussion Time. And as always please be kind and friendly to each other, especially any newbies.

Thanks
MSE Forum Team

Elite: Is this table taken please?

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in The Money Savers Arms
15.3K replies 577.1K views
18238248268288291529

Replies

  • tweetstweets Forumite
    35.9K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Home Insurance Hacker!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I took ages on 4747 too :mad: I'd better look out behind me now then, you are not far off!


    You are ok I am off to bed did next level then stuck so

    goodnight everyone :hello:
  • Sarahdol75Sarahdol75 Forumite
    7.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Evening all

    For the gardeners, I have 2 plants growing in my garden but dont know if they are plants or weeds or what they are. will post a picture
  • Sarahdol75Sarahdol75 Forumite
    7.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    20190516-130208.jpg

    20190516-130215.jpg
  • edited 16 May 2019 at 9:09PM
    SavvybuyerSavvybuyer Forumite
    22.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 16 May 2019 at 9:09PM
    Sleazy wrote: »
    I wonder which ISP they are with. :cool:
    Maybe a request under FOI might tell us ..... ;)

    I'm sure it will. I could put one in. There is no reason why the ISP would not be disclosed. Especially as, given that they are the communications regulator also responsible for telecommunications regulation, there would I think be even more public interest for disclosure here so that we can be assured of no conflicts of interest etc. I can see no exemption anyway, so no need even to get to looking at public interest for disclosure. This is even more disclosable I would think than the already disclosable information of contractual arrangements and expenditure of public money - the mere identity is surely not commercially sensitive - that would apply to any other public authority.

    I have thought before about whether they have email filters etc., given that they are dealing with regulating offensive language regularly and would surely need to communicate internally for legitimate business purposes including material that might not normally be allowed in other workplaces - also regulating porn channels where staff would need to watch the material, in order to assess its regulatory compliance or otherwise, and would need to watch it in their workplace that isn't normally seen in many other workplaces. I also wonder about what is 'safe for work' in respect of the workplaces of those involved in porn, namely the film studios that produce commercial pornography. It wouldn't seem to me that material containing swearing would be too problematic in a film studio at a time when such filming is going on:rotfl:. So the very concept of 'unsafe for work' is somewhat meaningless - something 'unsafe' may actually be safe enough as this may vary for different workplaces.

    Your curiosity you know, about the ISP - just write to them and ask. Just needs your real name and a return address (which can be an email address).
  • edited 16 May 2019 at 10:19PM
    SavvybuyerSavvybuyer Forumite
    22.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 16 May 2019 at 10:19PM
    In fact, I know that "offensive language" is heard in regulator's offices whether we can count quoted discussions among this. I once, many years ago, met the Head of Programming and Advertising (not as grand as it sounds maybe as they only had a handful or so of staff) of the then Radio Authority in their office and the two of us did have a discussion involving offensive language, in which they (they went first) mentioned ('used' in quoted form) three specific offensive words, including one of "the most offensive":eek: (:rotfl:that proved on that occasion to be not offensive at all) and even I said a couple too, words that both will not print on here, one of those twice as I am on repeat, and amazingly (:rotfl::rotfl:- in other words, we know really why not) I wasn't asked to leave as a result and did not get chucked out. But I would think for a fact that they are heard in regulators' buildings. I think I should probably add, so as not to give a potentially misleading advertising, that my main concern was actually misleading advertising - or actually it was everything, but not as part of any 'concern' but just the Asperger syndrome Code enforcer - mentioning this because I might otherwise have given the impression that I was someone objecting to swearing all the time. I am sure the department head knew from my correspondence that I had no objections and that they were quite free to mention those words with me, so none of it came as any shock.

    EDIT: Apparently, one of those words I used, the one I used twice, does print on here. Surprisingly perhaps as it is considered more severe than merely its root word. I just went and tested both of them on an old page that I hoped no-one was seeing and then removed them. But, yeah, surprisely, one of them is allowed through.
    The actual mild root word, that significant number of people don't even appear to believe is swearing, and which is largely more affectionate gets censored to four exclamations but the eight-letter word that is more severe and can be used more as a term of abuse gets through. Of the two eight-letter words I tried, one of which was censored and this other got through, the more serious one got through. Actually, some current versions of Collins give the censored one a "vulgar" marking but the one getting through marked as mere "slang" but I still think too severe for this forum, and I think the broadcast audience research puts the Collins "vulgar" in some parts of the website but not in others one as less severe than the Collins "slang" one that gets through on this website.

    EDIT 2: I am wrong. My "mild" word (this site censors) is in fact a strong word in the research, whilst my "more severe" word (uncensored on here but I am still not going to print it) is a medium one. It is not medium - it is more severe to me (if indeed I am notionally giving anything any severity at all*). The "medium" one would have had more impact on me - I'd always seen it as worse - I've have been more inclined to use the one the research now says is "strong" in front of my mum and in fact did so and without objection and in fact she called me that at times too (not in real anger or anything) and no problem to me or her but I would never have used the one they say is medium in front of her - and didn't do so. It does clearly vary for different people. But it is still the case that the four-letter root word (censored on here) is mild in the public opinion research (first word in mild column in the research for those wanting to find out what it is) whereas the eight-letter word (gets through) is medium in the research (again first word in the column), so it is still the case the mild is stopped and the medium gets through. Since it is in alphabetical order, me saying it in the first word in the lists will probably give you a clue.

    *My view is that all have been used so much over many years and that they are all now mild if they are anything at all (or at least they are to me all mild or not even that, even so I wouldn't go up to a stranger in the street and shout any of them at them as I assume everyone else is not at the same stage as me) - none of them are discriminatory words that are now the strongest of all.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • SavvybuyerSavvybuyer Forumite
    22.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sleazy wrote: »
    Me waffling? :eek:
    Does that make me a waffler, or a waffle?

    A waffler, on that occasion.
  • edited 16 May 2019 at 11:44PM
    SavvybuyerSavvybuyer Forumite
    22.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 16 May 2019 at 11:44PM
    Let's just end it by saying the radio presenter, she f'ed up didn't she? And you know that I am not saying the euphemism when I am having this thought here at home;).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKIdiYRMGo :rotfl:
    It proved to be dead funny rather than offensive at all. I just don't know how she managed it!

    Now I've come back here and then gone back there - and funny every time! It is as the caption says. "Rachel Burden says it like it is". She does: no wonder she had to apologise for the truth. At the moment on there, I can see there is one comment that has been made. The comment is "Appalling", which amuses me as well, possibly even more. I don't know if they really mean appalling, maybe they are just being ironic or sarcastic, but, if they do mean it, either way, it's ridiculous to me that someone says "Appalling":rotfl:. Perhaps they are appalled with me now for apparently supporting it so much, but I just find their comment "appalling" hilarious:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

    Appalling:rotfl:.

    It was perfectly in context too - on a programme that says it is about life for 20 somethings. "20 somethings" won't be offended by that - it depends on what generation you are.

    EDIT: I've actually managed to get further in the recording now - though my interest in the rest was waning as, on the first four or five occasions, the programme was boring after she says the phrase - they (and including the interviewee) just continue like it was unnoticed:rotfl:.

    Again. It just never fails. I can't listen to it without it making me laugh.

    EDIT 2: There's a version on the Independent's website where, not only do we have to sit for ages through an advert:eek:, they've got rid of (bleeped) the only good bit in the entire programme. Appalling:rotfl:.
    Here though - https://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/leisure/showbiz/17643866.bbc-presenter-rachel-burden-apologises-for-f-bomb/ - she accidentally appeared to drop the F-bomb. So, it only appears that she did but she didn't actually do so?:huh: I think rewind the recording on YouTube and you will find it's not an appearance! I have still not succeeded in failing to laugh.
  • edited 17 May 2019 at 12:32AM
    SavvybuyerSavvybuyer Forumite
    22.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 17 May 2019 at 12:32AM
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7011962.stm

    "It should not surprise anyone that these people, some of whom have limited intellects, become aggressive with each other."

    Perhaps, in future, I should just admit that everyone else really does have lower intelligence than me rather than keep sugar-coating it. If the district judge can say people (namely some of them) have "limited intellects" then I should do so regardless of whether people then think I am arrogant when, arrogantly, I will then say that I am not. I am just telling the truth. The district judge wasn't arrogant, he was correct in what he said - and so am I.

    Everyone else does have less intelligence* than me. Except that you of course do not:rotfl:.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    0 posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    MoneySaving Newbie
    Savvybuyer wrote: »
    A waffler, on that occasion.

    1zsjoi.jpg
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    0 posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    MoneySaving Newbie
    Good Morning :hello:

    15008952942-d81895175c-b-1-680x556.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support