Digby wrote:Random use of indicators by drivers. Sometimes no signal means they're turning left or right, and often at a roundabout a turning right signal means they're taking the next exit, it's often so bad now you can't even trust those who're doing it properly. Oh, and simultaneous or near simultaneous use of indicator and steering wheel such it's no actual indication
It's getting worse all the time, and one of the reason I didn't replace my car when we lost it to the floods 12 years ago.
Now I only drive 3-4 times a year, and each time it confirms how glad I am that I don't have to drive more
You lucky bastard, even if I don't have to drive much either.
I go running most days, and trying to cross some of the roads is bordering on being a lottery. Some cars in fairness do I think have drivers indicating you can cross, but the nitwits are overlooking in an age where so much glass in cars is heavily tinted you can barely see if there's a person inside never mind if they're allowing you some space. Another thing which annoys is cars giving themselves run up space to pulling out at a junction, it makes it much harder to cross behind a car, basically if people can't pull out from a junction without having a run up they should feel free to quit driving 'cause they're shit at it
Puja wrote:Real niche one here - the Prostate Cancer UK advert that's showing on the rugby all the time. It uses the "What a piece of work is man" speech from Hamlet, but attempts to protray it through judicious cuts as an uplifting speech about the greatness of men, which it is categorically not. For a start, Hamlet is specifically talking about humans when he says man, not the male gender, and secondly he's saying that we have all this potential and are actually pretty shit.
Only quote Shakespeare if you understand it!
Puja
They’re trying to raise money for a cancer charity not gain a first from UCL in English Lit.
They're trying to raise money by using a famous speech that means the opposite of the point they're trying to make.
Puja wrote:Real niche one here - the Prostate Cancer UK advert that's showing on the rugby all the time. It uses the "What a piece of work is man" speech from Hamlet, but attempts to protray it through judicious cuts as an uplifting speech about the greatness of men, which it is categorically not. For a start, Hamlet is specifically talking about humans when he says man, not the male gender, and secondly he's saying that we have all this potential and are actually pretty shit.
Only quote Shakespeare if you understand it!
Puja
They’re trying to raise money for a cancer charity not gain a first from UCL in English Lit.
Puja wrote:Real niche one here - the Prostate Cancer UK advert that's showing on the rugby all the time. It uses the "What a piece of work is man" speech from Hamlet, but attempts to protray it through judicious cuts as an uplifting speech about the greatness of men, which it is categorically not. For a start, Hamlet is specifically talking about humans when he says man, not the male gender, and secondly he's saying that we have all this potential and are actually pretty shit.
Only quote Shakespeare if you understand it!
Puja
They’re trying to raise money for a cancer charity not gain a first from UCL in English Lit.
They're trying to raise money by using a famous speech that means the opposite of the point they're trying to make.
It's only the latest in a long trend over the last few years (probably mentioned it already in this thread) but there is a particularly horrific cover of The Chain on an advert in the ITV rugby coverage. That soppy, over-wrought, faux-angsty, acoustic cover style grates with me to my very core.
I guess it must resonate with some people because they recognise the words and the emotion of it doesn't require much deciphering, perhaps Govey/Puja for instance, but I cannot wait for this trend to stop. This is why I resent watching normal TV so much when the sport is on.
People saying "no pun intended" when somebody else makes a pun (intentionally or not) as if it's a punch line. Just fuck off. It's as if these people don't even understand what those words mean.
Mikey Brown wrote:Also when people say 'addicting' in place of 'addictive'. Am I wrong or does this not make any sense?
correct - 'addictive' is an adjective so describes the substance/activity, 'addicting' is a verb so describes the actvity wot's making you addicted...e.g. taking regular espresso shots or......
Galfon wrote:'The Club's DNA' - gets banded about pretty liberally.(even the FA has a project of this name)
...is eugenics creeping back in .?
"As I wrote during the Rugby World Cup, the man is utterly relentless. He never stops, first or last minute. He’s the man offering to carry, looking to make the hit, the catch, the tackle. The standards he’s set for this Welsh team is at the core of their DNA and it’s fitting that, if all pans out, he will challenge Richie McCaw as the most capped player in the history of the game."
The "people's party". I mean the "people's" anything is pretty annoying, but it seems particularly redundant when any majority government that's ever existed could reasonably claim to be "the people's party" at that time. Surely all that does is explain that more people voted for the thing that won?
Mikey Brown wrote:The "people's party". I mean the "people's" anything is pretty annoying, but it seems particularly redundant when any majority government that's ever existed could reasonably claim to be "the people's party" at that time. Surely all that does is explain that more people voted for the thing that won?
This gets my goat, big time!!
2020, the beginning of a new decade is what we're reading everywhere!
When I went to school (ok, several decades ago!), a decade is a period of ten years from 1 -10, so a decade ends in 1990,2000, 2010, 2020, and a new one in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.
Is it me?
If any of you feckers answer in the affirmative, I'll strike you off my Christmas card list!
francoisfou wrote:This gets my goat, big time!!
2020, the beginning of a new decade is what we're reading everywhere!
When I went to school (ok, several decades ago!), a decade is a period of ten years from 1 -10, so a decade ends in 1990,2000, 2010, 2020, and a new one in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.
Is it me?
If any of you feckers answer in the affirmative, I'll strike you off my Christmas card list!
I tend to come down on the side that clarity is more important than being technically correct and to disbar 2020 from "the Twenties" but include 2030 is being difficult for no real benefit.
francoisfou wrote:This gets my goat, big time!!
2020, the beginning of a new decade is what we're reading everywhere!
When I went to school (ok, several decades ago!), a decade is a period of ten years from 1 -10, so a decade ends in 1990,2000, 2010, 2020, and a new one in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.
Is it me?
If any of you feckers answer in the affirmative, I'll strike you off my Christmas card list!
I tend to come down on the side that clarity is more important than being technically correct and to disbar 2020 from "the Twenties" but include 2030 is being difficult for no real benefit.
Puja
So if you are clearly wrong, that's better than being right, right?
francoisfou wrote:This gets my goat, big time!!
2020, the beginning of a new decade is what we're reading everywhere!
When I went to school (ok, several decades ago!), a decade is a period of ten years from 1 -10, so a decade ends in 1990,2000, 2010, 2020, and a new one in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.
Is it me?
If any of you feckers answer in the affirmative, I'll strike you off my Christmas card list!
I tend to come down on the side that clarity is more important than being technically correct and to disbar 2020 from "the Twenties" but include 2030 is being difficult for no real benefit.
Puja
Good cartoon! Just had a similar “discussion” with the missus, but then again, she’s French...!
francoisfou wrote:This gets my goat, big time!!
2020, the beginning of a new decade is what we're reading everywhere!
When I went to school (ok, several decades ago!), a decade is a period of ten years from 1 -10, so a decade ends in 1990,2000, 2010, 2020, and a new one in 1991, 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.
Is it me?
If any of you feckers answer in the affirmative, I'll strike you off my Christmas card list!
I tend to come down on the side that clarity is more important than being technically correct and to disbar 2020 from "the Twenties" but include 2030 is being difficult for no real benefit.
Puja
So if you are clearly wrong, that's better than being right, right?
More that, if something is ambiguous and could go either way, go for the clearest and easiest option, rather than the one which lets a few smug people go, "Well, actually..."
I tend to come down on the side that clarity is more important than being technically correct and to disbar 2020 from "the Twenties" but include 2030 is being difficult for no real benefit.
Puja
So if you are clearly wrong, that's better than being right, right?
More that, if something is ambiguous and could go either way, go for the clearest and easiest option, rather than the one which lets a few smug people go, "Well, actually..."
Banquo wrote:
So if you are clearly wrong, that's better than being right, right?
More that, if something is ambiguous and could go either way, go for the clearest and easiest option, rather than the one which lets a few smug people go, "Well, actually..."
Puja
bloody experts eh ..... HNY
Talking of bloody experts... What’s the title of this thread?
