Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • davemorton
    • By davemorton 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    • 27,218Posts
    • 325,371Thanks
    davemorton
    Elite: Is this table taken please?
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 18, 12:43 PM
    Elite: Is this table taken please? 30th Nov 18 at 12:43 PM
    Just looking for a spare quiet table in the corner of the arms for a few exiled elite to chat, is this table free please?
    “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
    Juvenal, The Sixteen Satires
Page 595
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 14th Oct 19, 9:36 PM
    • 21,968 Posts
    • 221,666 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    That is seriously bad tweets. I have got so used to using it that I don't think I could get through half the levels without it these days!

    Night night all.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 14th Oct 19, 9:45 PM
    • 56,766 Posts
    • 648,427 Thanks
    bubbs
    Bubbs those pills are working better than the ibuprofen did. I still got slight dull ache but not like I had I just got to be careful I don't stretch arm or bang shoulder or I am in pain.
    Originally posted by tweets
    That's good my swelling hs gone down as well now
    Night, night
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Oct 19, 10:27 PM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Not all too happy about this because it seems that rules do not apply anymore, so that no rules now apply anywhere (I can't adapt from one context to another as the context is the same in respect of every type of rule - rules are never meant to be broken). And no-one else at all seems to be bothered in the slightest by it - they've just awarded the Booker Prize for Fiction to two winners jointly and everyone seems to be completely fine about it! This is despite the rules - I know at this stage I am a boring, bugbear pedant that no-one likes and killjoy me - https://thebookerprizes.com/sites/manbosamjo/files/181210%20MB2019%20Rules%20And%20Entry%20Form.pdf - that clearly state: "The prize may not be divided or withheld."

    I'm also not happy with the way government and organisations in general appear to be treating rules as being that they don't apply to them and I may return to this at some time possibly several weeks away. On this occasion, as the television presenter I heard said, they flout the rules. Joint prizes were awarded in the past and this rule was introduced precisely to stop this happening. Yet - and no-one in the audience or anywhere else seems to care - they just ignore the rule. I find it difficult how they just do this, except that they are non-autistic people. Non-autistic people, as usual, just pick and choose when and when not to comply, often or almost never mean what they actually said, make things up when they go along, are inveterate liars, and don't actually mean rules when they write them and claim that they have them.

    As to why I actually have a bit of a physical reaction and my brain can't actually deal with people just deciding to ignore the rules that are claimed to apply when in fact they clearly don't, this may explain: https://www.spectrumnews.org/opinion/playing-by-the-rules/

    For "children" read "includes adults", because it is a lifelong condition (at least as from when it is diagnosable, age three months, three years or whatever). "However, the children with autism were significantly more distressed by the Cybershape rule violations."

    It is clearly this - they've broken the rules!!(). So, as such a blatant rule is now not complied with, what obligation have I now to comply with any rule at all? Surely the whole world now collapses into complete rule-breaking as and when we choose and we no longer have to comply with anything as the blatant intention of the rule is flouted. I just can't deal with it and the confusion it creates for me now!!

    I suppose - even though I still have my uncomfortable doubt - I can say that, in order to bring this within the rule "The prize may not be divided or withheld", I need to look at how it is interpreted and what exactly the obligation requires or does not and look to find a way around the rule the way the current government does. I suppose this is like saying that X may be the case. In other words, it may or may not. Therefore, a rule (supposed rule since it just flouted) that says "The prize may not be divided..." actually means "The prize may not, or may, be divided...". And that way it is now within the rules. However, I still have my uncertainty over this one and I'm not thoroughly happy with it, because it frustrates the whole intention of what is no longer a rule. Clearly the matter of Just William and grammar being deliberately interpreted to allow us to do whatever someone says we are not to do! Just behave how we like it seems and rules no longer apply. You lot non-autistics are very confusing.

    EDIT: Just hearing further on the News at Ten now - that there was "shock and disbelief" when it was announced that there were to be two winners (I say zero as I quash the whole thing as being against the rules and therefore null, void and of no effect* - I deem that there are no Booker Prize winners this year. However, as the prize cannot be withheld, deeming that would also break the rule and therefore I cannot square it). So there was shock and disbelief at the announcement, I am now told (although I suspect people are perfectly comfortable with the breach of the rules, that wasn't the shock and disbelief for non-autistic people, instead the "shock and disbelief" is because it wasn't expected that they would purport to award the prize to two winners as I don't accept that any prize has been validly awarded). Of course I didn't know that there was any shock and disbelief at the time, as I didn't even notice it. I've had to have the reporter on the News at Ten say that this was so for me then to know about it. My own reaction, as usual, was the contrary to everyone else - complete lack of emotion at the live announcement and, now, belatedly, later on, a feeling of somewhat discomfort as the rules have been broken. In other words, I think people generally are fine with what I am not and vice versa. I just don't know how they can simply flout a rule like this, but apparently they can and no action against it so that everything is seemingly up in the air now after this from my perspective. Is the Booker Prize awarding (purported awarding) the final straw in the complete breakdown of society as I used to know it?

    *I can do this, since there are no rules under which I cannot appoint myself as some sort of judge and then decide it myself or, if there are any rules, then, just like them, I now disapply them and self-appoint as a judge and quash their decision anyway, to no effect, that I "do not agree with". Perhaps I can say - although I did not write a book - that I have been disadvantaged as, if I knew there was more than one prize, or a divided prize, I could have put in my own book as a submission, or even if it was not a "book" it would still be a book since any rules defining a "book" are now disapplied and I purport to submit any writing as being a book therefore and of course I should have won! They have deprived me of a prize by their changing of the rules in this unfair and unannounced in advance way seemingly done at will.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-10-2019 at 12:27 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 14th Oct 19, 11:06 PM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Where's the rule that says "...unless the judges simply can't agree among themselves or can't separate the works"? I see no such exemption to the rules and therefore consider any prize is awarded ultra vires. As usual, it seems, people don't actually mean what they say and they create unannounced, unwritten exemptions at any moment. I have been caught out by this recently by some law I was complying with, as all of us should, only to find several months later, after depriving myself of doing things believing them to be illegal, that there was a Court of Appeal decision several years back under which they gave the words a different meaning to what they actually mean - they only apply in a limited circumstance, so that, again, people (that is non-autistic people) don't mean what they say. [Sigh] A seemingly recurring problem with non-autistic people (that is nearly everyone, including most likely you!). I presume I was expected and supposed to know about the Court of Appeal case, but I don't know about every decision that has ever been made. No-one else would have been affected or bothered as they wouldn't have noticed the rule in the first place or bothered to comply with it even if they did (they just break rules!) and thus wouldn't have the problem until society happened to make itself more clear to me about what it actually required of me and only found about that after numerous active enquiry of my own until one place actually informed me of the Court of Appeal case.

    What a waste of time put onto myself - if they had just explained what they meant at the outset rather than obfuscating, being evasive and refusing to answer questions when there was no need as the law actually meant something else and could therefore have simply been explained to me that I was mistaken (because I assumed it actually meant what the words meant) rather than wasting my time, even if they didn't do that intentionally. It's the one that complies with the rules - or tries to do so, with what he is told - that is pushed through all sorts of extra work, extra hoops and requirements that no-one else complies with and then only in order to achieve the same thing as everyone else. I did feel in the past that I have pushed my back out only to achieve the same as everyone else, but this extra work is the impact of my disability and my ability to achieve this then makes it not appear to be there when it seems everyone else achieves some things effortlessly. It's the extra work I seemingly have to do that is the disability that I would not know I had had, since I have always been this way and perhaps to some extent had to work a little harder, so don't know what it is like to achieve things without the extra effort. I think most people simply ignore the rules and that's how they do it - they don't bother with them, they just do what seems right and it is usually right and doesn't get them into trouble as no-one else bothers with the technical rules either - the only person that is concerned or cares is me and I am the one that then has the extra thing, arising from the detail I cannot ignore, that no-one else even sees, and then the problem when I take it literally - but, then, how could I not, because that was what they had actually said and I was not to know of any implication that was simply not there or a Court case under which the word did not include what the word clearly does mean - I think the Court simply copped out and decided it might something else so as not to lead to an absurd result, but instead I followed the absurd result (which didn't seem absurd to me) including no longer doing quite normal things as they seemed now to be criminal when the Court decision itself admits in a way they haven't given the word the meaning it actually has.

    It says the word doesn't include things that cause X even though they clearly cause X - if they had meant what the Court then interpreted the words to me, they should have used those words instead and not the ones they actually did - the Court looked, I now see, at the intention of the legislation to confine the terminology, but then it should not have used that terminology when it didn't mean it. How I am to know? I see the words and read the statute and give the words their ordinary meaning. I am told by other case law earlier that related words have their ordinary meaning and that's what I gave them, only to find the words the statute uses actually have a different meaning according to the Court (they were simply fudging things and giving them a different meaning so that everything didn't become criminal - I simply avoided the entire area in which the law applied, and thus avoided its jurisdiction, so as to ensure that everything I did was not illegal - only to discover I did all of that unnecessarily as they actually mean something else or didn't use the words they meant or the Court has decided they meant something else, unspecified in the legislation, and I do not know how I was supposed to know because they gave me no clue that their was some hidden or other meaning than what is clearly said - except that it is not clear, since it means something else that is (fairly) clear instead).
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 14-10-2019 at 11:43 PM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th Oct 19, 12:09 AM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/14/booker-prize-judges-break-the-rules-and-insist-on-joint-winners

    "But the more we talked about it, [having two winners] seemed the only fair representation of our deliberations, which was why we felt the rules were inadequate to the problem we had been given,"

    Well, I think the Theft Act is inadequate to the problem I have been given (by myself to myself) - how to steal within the law. Therefore, completely unknown and unintended by the Booker judges I suspect, there is the precedent by which I say maybe I am therefore to break the Theft Act when I next go to Tesco as the rule is inadequate to my problem of not being able to steal and comply with the law?

    I see no exemption that allows rules to be broken because they are, supposedly, inadequate to a problem. Again, "this rule does not apply if it is inadequate to a problem" - I see nowhere where that is stated at all. These presumed non-autists just make the rules up as they go along and delete them when inconvenient to themselves or supposedly "inadequate". When is a rule ever not "inadequate"? Again, "this rule does not apply when it does not give a fair representation of the judges' deliberations" - this exemption is not stated either. If they mean that to be the case, then it should be stated. It is objectionable that it is not. This is just bring some unwritten rule out and say Savvy is wrong again, retrospectively and without prior notice. Then if I comply with their revised unwritten rule, non-autistics often bring out some other unwritten rule and say that doesn't apply - it seems like an attempt to catch me out, it isn't as it's just the way most people operate in non-compliance with rules that they claim beforehand apply and then choose to dispense with if it suits or is "inadequate" - of course I am never caught out as I comply with what people said, only for them usually again to say that wasn't what they actually meant (if so,... do not say it then!!) and the problem and fault is with non-autistics as usual - and their inability to be accurate and correct and my perfection and rightness on almost everything, my perfection and rightness which is out of place in this world and wrong.

    I shall be complying with the law. I may moan again about government and organisations and their methods of (non-)compliance at some time in the future - imagine if we were to behave the same way as them! I am considering writing to Tesco, or to the police, to seek an exemption as that is what companies and organisations do with regulators - perhaps I can be exempted from the law in exactly the same way?!? Particularly as it is totally inadequate to my selfish wishes().
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-10-2019 at 12:30 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th Oct 19, 12:45 AM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50014906

    [My emphasis:]

    So when Florence told her the five judges wanted to announce a tie, she said no. The judges got back around the table.
    Again, they told Wood they wanted two winners. This time, Wood phoned Baroness Kennedy QC, chair of the Booker Prize Foundation, who told her: "Absolutely not."
    The judges deliberated again. "We tried voting, it didn't work," Florence said.
    "There's a metaphor for our times. And equally, today of all days, when rebellion is in the air, maybe we were a little moved by that."
    The panel resolved to hold firm on their split decision. Baroness Kennedy was called again.
    "She said, 'Well if that's what they've chosen to do, there's nothing we can do,'"
    Wood said.

    Well, if there's nothing they can do, then the rules can just be broken at will and aren't worth the screen they appear on. The so-called rules are now a blank screen. I may wonder what "rebellion" is and what type of rebellion is or is not potentially encouraged by this, and whether any excuses can apply such as theirs if this is the road down which we now go. I am the last bastion saying the rules must be complied with, and mystified as to how they were not and pointless to have them - or rather, now, claim to have them - if there is no sanction for their breach. People were just misleading me when they claim that these are the rules that apply but can then it seems break them with no penalty. The misleading Booker Prize rules that don't exist anymore that purport that there are rules and purport to set them out, when in fact they are none as they can be broken at will and "there's nothing we can do". Good job I didn't see or know about the rules in advance of their breach. If I had done, I would feel deceived and gravely aggrieved at having been misled that the rule existed when in fact it doesn't if it can simply be ignored and nothing done about it. It is however the type of rule-breaking, misleading behaviour that seems typical of people generally nowadays and is to be expected in accordance with my low expectations of people generally nowadays given their repeated deceptive behaviour (after untruthfully claiming that you never lie when this itself is untrue) and breaking of rules that I have witnessed over several decades now, after initially being successfully misled and deceived and generally done over. As I made clear at the outset, I am a killjoy. I don't believe you are all liars and rule-breakers on every occasion. However, it seems best to proceed from that assumption unless and until the contrary is proven to be the case and without any reliance of it at all on the assertion of anyone that may itself be untruthful and therefore to be assumed to be a lie until shown that it is not and no amount of alleged "corroboration" by anyone else claiming the same thing amounts to being valid either as that may also be the same untruth().

    It is the Booker Prize Foundation, or the Booker Price, that is "misleading" by having rules it can't enforce and the judges on this occasion that are rule-breakers and then, even worse, seem to seek to have some badge of honour or delight in being called rule-breakers by that giving them some "rebellion". It's hopeless - the more I criticise, the more it plays into their hands and gets them support for their rebellious behaviour. So I had better say I disagree with the initial premise that this is a breach of the rules at all, including the Trustees' interpretation of the rules (so-called rules maybe), and say this complied with the rules because, quite clearly, "may not" means "may not, or may" the same as "may" can mean "may, or may not". I don't accept they broke the rules at all. They clearly complied fully with them, so they don't even have any rebellious streak by which they can defeat me and instead I have diffused their behaviour which is within the rules on my interpretation. After all, we can simply disagree with anything these days and there is nothing anyone can do, we can just shrug our shoulders and say we disagree and that's that - don't have to accept any court rulings or opinions of trustees or anything, we can just "disagree". If we adopt the approach that others seem to do that now seems to render everything up for question. Again, imagine we behave the same way as government and organisations seem to do - all of a sudden, now the boot is on the other foot isn't it and now apparently it no longer applies. The fundamental rule of this society - when it suits, yet again. It is just when it suits. It is cynical.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-10-2019 at 1:20 AM.
    • Savvybuyer
    • By Savvybuyer 15th Oct 19, 1:29 AM
    • 21,588 Posts
    • 270,376 Thanks
    Savvybuyer
    Of course no-one is going to take serious umbrage over splitting of the Booker Prize on this occasion and it would be seen as churlish to do so, which is I suspect the real point. It's the unwritten context that makes it "acceptable" to people generally but this pedant over the rules ignores it and just sees the rule. I actually agree with the outcome - or would do if they didn't have a strict rule but instead said "Unless exceptional circumstances apply," (in other words could include judges' failure to agree after five hours - or, in other words, something I would then criticise as a get-out clause that enables when it suits to apply but at least it would then be stated in the rule and not objectionably be unwritten). As it is, they have that strict rule - or in truth now merely purport to have such a rule as, in fact, there is no rule anymore as there's nothing that can be done if it isn't complied with (even though I am now contradicting them all and saying it was complied with so as not to allow them any delight of a rebellion). It's just it seems somewhat breath-taking from this autist's point of view if "rules" like this can be simply flouted and just strikes at the heart of things to me - why have rules at all? Clearly irrelevant and doesn't matter when they can simply flout them and, in some sort of fundamental way that strikes at my core as a person who has autism, doesn't make me happy how they can do that since my baseline fundamental core seems to be "rules are never meant to be broken" and "never" is taken literally there - no exceptions, whatsoever, on any occasion. If you mean something to be exempt or not covered by a rule, then you are to state so and expressly and are doing an incomplete job of failure if you don't do so. Imperfection once again, and unallowed by this perfectionist. Yes I do require that you cater for literally every eventuality! There's no rule under which I am not allowed to require that, so again it is all operating by rules and my behaviour quite predictable in that regard as I see it.

    You end up, with me, with any objections that you see as absurd being turned around as I will adopt the approach of accepting the absurd thing at least for those purposes of ensuring that you lose the argument against myself( - not entirely serious on my part but some scintilla of truth within it perhaps). Mind you, if we didn't have people seeing things in a different way, then we would never challenge even some of our fundamentals and thus never change some things that might be useful to change or the assumptions that don't in fact hold true. Anyway, I don't accept absurd things as it is a lot of other people that have absurd and impossible ideas that make no sense and see things in a manner that is completely unreasonable - can't put anything past the bounds of human opinion, even if believed wholly wrongly and against all the facts. And, anyway, in a society in which people make inefficient decisions of buying full price £4.50 ice cream tubs (and not large ones at that), clearly nothing is to be put past the sheer stupidity and irrationality of some people.
    Last edited by Savvybuyer; 15-10-2019 at 1:49 AM.
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th Oct 19, 7:54 AM
    • 33,995 Posts
    • 446,221 Thanks
    tweets
    That is seriously bad tweets. I have got so used to using it that I don't think I could get through half the levels without it these days!

    Night night all.
    Originally posted by Enterprise 1701C
    I just plod along if candy doesn't like me there is nothing I can do
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th Oct 19, 7:56 AM
    • 33,995 Posts
    • 446,221 Thanks
    tweets
    Good Morning

    Its raining at the front and fine at the back work that one out

    is served
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th Oct 19, 7:58 AM
    • 33,995 Posts
    • 446,221 Thanks
    tweets
    Savvy was yesterday's smartest player!
    46 players played

    https://www.funtrivia.com/private/main.cfm?tid=99008

    Today's Topic (Tuesday): *** FunTrivia Mixed Bag (default)
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 15th Oct 19, 8:00 AM
    • 18,798 Posts
    • 40,300 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Good Morning

    Its raining at the front and fine at the back work that one out

    is served
    Originally posted by tweets
    Because you live in Oldham perhaps?

    Good morning all
    First coffee in front of me now .... thanks
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • tweets
    • By tweets 15th Oct 19, 8:38 AM
    • 33,995 Posts
    • 446,221 Thanks
    tweets
    Because you live in Oldham perhaps?

    Good morning all
    First coffee in front of me now .... thanks
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    Good Morning Sleazy

    Oye cheeky

    Still same I hope I don't get wet though. Walkies is dry side work is in middle Sat here

    Is that 3 empty I can see ?
    Lost 3st-9.5lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 15th Oct 19, 8:41 AM
    • 21,968 Posts
    • 221,666 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Good morning all, currently fine here

    Bubbs, glad to hear the swelling has gone down, you sounded a bit more cheerful in your last post

    Good Morning

    Its raining at the front and fine at the back work that one out

    is served
    Originally posted by tweets
    I once watched a shower pass by the bottom of the garden, no rain in the garden, but step out of the back gate and a couple of paces further it was raining

    Also had a lesson in a prefab many moons ago, and it was raining on one side and not on the other. It was a geography lesson and the teacher actually managed to use it as part of the lesson.

    Thanks for the tweets
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 15th Oct 19, 5:50 PM
    • 56,766 Posts
    • 648,427 Thanks
    bubbs
    Evening all
    No rain all day
    Enterprise i am ok on here just fed up of it on there, its like cyber bullying in my eyes
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Sleazy
    • By Sleazy 15th Oct 19, 5:54 PM
    • 18,798 Posts
    • 40,300 Thanks
    Sleazy
    Hello All

    Who's bullying you Bubb?
    Weekly Distance Walked 27km / Total For Year 1271 km

    Quod scripsi, scripsi
    • bubbs
    • By bubbs 15th Oct 19, 6:49 PM
    • 56,766 Posts
    • 648,427 Thanks
    bubbs
    Hello All

    Who's bullying you Bubb?
    Originally posted by Sleazy
    On the Elite and they probably don't think it is but when you get called gobby day in day out when you post, cause i post alot it wears thin.
    Different if im first to test a glitch which i often was!
    Sealed pot challenge number 242 £350 for 2015, 2016 £400 Actual£345, £400 for 2017 Actual £500 £770 for 2018 £1295 for 2019
    Stopped Smoking 22/01/15
    :- 5 st 1 1/2lb
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 15th Oct 19, 6:49 PM
    • 21,968 Posts
    • 221,666 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    Evening all
    No rain all day
    Enterprise i am ok on here just fed up of it on there, its like cyber bullying in my eyes
    Originally posted by bubbs
    Just so long as you are OK here xx

    Have to admit I let anything like that anywhere just wash over me, but maybe I am fortunate in being able to do that. I can certainly see where you are coming from.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • obama
    • By obama 15th Oct 19, 6:53 PM
    • 577 Posts
    • 8,966 Thanks
    obama
    Hello all

    Can't remember the last time I looked in over here, but had to poke my head in the door to tell Bubbs how much I have always appreciated her posts, and I am sending her a big virtual hug
    • Enterprise 1701C
    • By Enterprise 1701C 15th Oct 19, 6:57 PM
    • 21,968 Posts
    • 221,666 Thanks
    Enterprise 1701C
    They're missing you over there bubbs, maybe you could bargain your way to getting them to be a bit nicer to you, if you want to.
    What is this life if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare
    • pippo
    • By pippo 15th Oct 19, 7:00 PM
    • 3,657 Posts
    • 37,653 Thanks
    pippo
    Of course no-one is going to take serious umbrage over splitting of the Booker Prize on this occasion and it would be seen as churlish to do so, which is I suspect the real point. It's the unwritten context that makes it "acceptable" to people generally but this pedant over the rules ignores it and just sees the rule. I actually agree with the outcome - or would do if they didn't have a strict rule but instead said "Unless exceptional circumstances apply," (in other words could include judges' failure to agree after five hours - or, in other words, something I would then criticise as a get-out clause that enables when it suits to apply but at least it would then be stated in the rule and not objectionably be unwritten). As it is, they have that strict rule - or in truth now merely purport to have such a rule as, in fact, there is no rule anymore as there's nothing that can be done if it isn't complied with (even though I am now contradicting them all and saying it was complied with so as not to allow them any delight of a rebellion). It's just it seems somewhat breath-taking from this autist's point of view if "rules" like this can be simply flouted and just strikes at the heart of things to me - why have rules at all? Clearly irrelevant and doesn't matter when they can simply flout them and, in some sort of fundamental way that strikes at my core as a person who has autism, doesn't make me happy how they can do that since my baseline fundamental core seems to be "rules are never meant to be broken" and "never" is taken literally there - no exceptions, whatsoever, on any occasion. If you mean something to be exempt or not covered by a rule, then you are to state so and expressly and are doing an incomplete job of failure if you don't do so. Imperfection once again, and unallowed by this perfectionist. Yes I do require that you cater for literally every eventuality! There's no rule under which I am not allowed to require that, so again it is all operating by rules and my behaviour quite predictable in that regard as I see it.

    You end up, with me, with any objections that you see as absurd being turned around as I will adopt the approach of accepting the absurd thing at least for those purposes of ensuring that you lose the argument against myself( - not entirely serious on my part but some scintilla of truth within it perhaps). Mind you, if we didn't have people seeing things in a different way, then we would never challenge even some of our fundamentals and thus never change some things that might be useful to change or the assumptions that don't in fact hold true. Anyway, I don't accept absurd things as it is a lot of other people that have absurd and impossible ideas that make no sense and see things in a manner that is completely unreasonable - can't put anything past the bounds of human opinion, even if believed wholly wrongly and against all the facts. And, anyway, in a society in which people make inefficient decisions of buying full price £4.50 ice cream tubs (and not large ones at that), clearly nothing is to be put past the sheer stupidity and irrationality of some people.
    Originally posted by Savvybuyer
    Oh Savvy, I so want to read . but haven't got tome today.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

136Posts Today

1,952Users online

Martin's Twitter