Re: People you shouldn't trust
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:21 pm
People who start Facebook updates with "That moment when..."
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
Unlucky. OK, I'll allow that such people are to be trusted if they write in just to see if they can get their question read out on television, as long as they do not do so in as a genuine pursuit of information (unless as just a secondary means) - i.e. they still just Google it themselves anyway.Johnny Canuck wrote:Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
People who arbitrarily change the rules and add caveats just so they don't offend people they want to appear nice to.Gavin Chipper wrote:Unlucky. OK, I'll allow that such people are to be trusted if they write in just to see if they can get their question read out on television, as long as they do not do so in as a genuine pursuit of information (unless as just a secondary means) - i.e. they still just Google it themselves anyway.Johnny Canuck wrote:Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
Why would that make a difference? A family member of mine died quite recently, and I still felt no need to descent into euphemism to soften the fact that he karked it at an undue age. Does using phrases like 'passed away', or the laughable 'fell asleep' make anyone feel better about things?Marc Meakin wrote:I'm guessing that you haven't lost anyone close recently.
Don't you mean 'passing away breed'?Marc Meakin wrote:I am one of the dying breed of people with a little decorum when dealing with delicate matters like bereavement.
I understand it, I didn't lump in on the non-trust side of things though. If I was talking to someone who was upset about a death, I'd be gentle and understanding as appropriate, but I'd be surprised if I ended up using a euphemism. I'd probably just talk about something else if they were that sensitive.Matt Morrison wrote:You and Ian are both saying "don't use 'passed away' with me, say what you mean" which is totally and utterly fine. But I bet you both know _other_ people who wouldn't appreciate the kind of bluntness you're advocating, and not trusting people purely based on their attempts to make something a little less harsh seems weird; even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
People who don't use the standing/walking side system.Adam Gillard wrote:People who get on an escalator on the right (standing) side and then change their mind part-way up and cut in front of someone to use the left (walking) side.
When I started this thread, the whole trust thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was supposed to be more of a humorous thing. Just "people who do wrong stuff" really.Matt Morrison wrote:even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
People who use enclosing punctuation marks or all capitals for emphasis in online contexts where bold, italic and underline are available.Matt Morrison wrote:You and Ian are both saying "don't use 'passed away' with me, say what you mean" which is totally and utterly fine. But I bet you both know _other_ people who wouldn't appreciate the kind of bluntness you're advocating, and not trusting people purely based on their attempts to make something a little less harsh seems weird; even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I was with it too. It's not as though if someone said "passed away" I would refuse to entrust my dog with them. I think it's a bit odd and unnecessary and speaks to a fear of death that is probably unhealthy, but I wouldn't actively distrust them.Gavin Chipper wrote:When I started this thread, the whole trust thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was supposed to be more of a humorous thing. Just "people who do wrong stuff" really.Matt Morrison wrote:even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
My theory is that it means that you - in normal conversation - swear appropriately, i.e. only when the situation demands it to, for instance, reinforce a point. This distinguishes you from people who swear every other word. But then excessive and unnecessary use of swearing can be funny too.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who say to me when I swear something along the lines of "I don't think I've ever heard you swear before. You don't seem like the sort of person who would swear." You'd be surprised how many people have actually said this to me over my life. I find it a really odd thing to even go through someone's mind. Cunts.
Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
It annoys pedants, which is always a legitimate use.Johnny Canuck wrote:Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.
You're both literally wrong. Literally has (or should have*) a very specific function of distinguishing a statement from figurative, hyperbolic, ironic or metaphorical statements. Just because it is widely misused doesn't mean it should be ok to widely misuse it.Johnny Canuck wrote:Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
The word "literally" doesn't have to be used literally any more than the word "hoarsely" has to be used "hoarsely". It's an error of levels or something to say otherwise. When you use the word "literally", it applies to what you are saying after the word "literally", not the word itself. And the word "literally" is just a word like any other in the English language, which can be used for exaggeration or figuratively.sean d wrote:You're both literally wrong. Literally has (or should have*) a very specific function of distinguishing a statement from figurative, hyperbolic, ironic or metaphorical statements. Just because it is widely misused doesn't mean it should be ok to widely misuse it.Johnny Canuck wrote:Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
*I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Agreed. And it defines what follows as being in a literal, actual, non-figurative sense.Gavin Chipper wrote: When you use the word "literally", it applies to what you are saying after the word "literally", not the word itself.
Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.sean d wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Especially so if a word is defined by the word itself preceded by "not"!Tim Down wrote:Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.Gavin Chipper wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
I think that quote has literally been attributed to the wrong person.Tim Down wrote:Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.Gavin Chipper wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Oops. Sorry. Fixed now.Femidom Chunderthrust wrote: I think that quote has literally been attributed to the wrong person.
But it's not always 1 to 10, is it? Sometimes 0 is an option, so 0 to 10 (or eleven ranks). Depends on how the question is termed. I think you sometimes assume that people are less rigorous than you, when the case may be that they are in fact more rigorous.Gavin Chipper wrote:Why 1 to 10?
Sometimes it is an option, and the people who give you a 0 to 10 scale can be trusted. But 1 to 10 is very common.JimBentley wrote:But it's not always 1 to 10, is it? Sometimes 0 is an option, so 0 to 10 (or eleven ranks). Depends on how the question is termed. I think you sometimes assume that people are less rigorous than you, when the case may be that they are in fact more rigorous.Gavin Chipper wrote:Why 1 to 10?
Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
I just think it's odd to have a scale from 1 to 10. It's confusing for one thing. People might give a score of 5 thinking it's the middle, when actually it's equivalent to 4 out of 9. 5.5 would actually be the middle score. I'd be surprised if many people actually properly took into account this asymmetry when giving their score. It's also the same as saying "Add one to your score out of 9". Absolutely stone-cold mental, I genuinely can't see any other description that applies.Ian Volante wrote:Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
On a sort of related (not really) aside, all our A-Level mock examinations had a maximum score of 100, i.e. if you answered everything correctly you would score 100. All of them except in Maths that is, for some reason the mock exams always had a maximum of 114, or 109, or 112, or some other seemingly-random figure between 100 and 120. Can anyone confirm if they can recall such a weird system? Maybe it still goes on, who knows.Gavin Chipper wrote:I just think it's odd to have a scale from 1 to 10. It's confusing for one thing. People might give a score of thinking it's the middle, when actually it's equivalent to 4 out of 9. 5.5 would actually be the middle score. I'd be surprised if many people actually properly took into account this asymmetry when giving their score. It's also the same as saying "Add one to your score out of 9". Absolutely stone-cold mental, I genuinely can't see any other description that applies.Ian Volante wrote:Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
They pretty much all (except some weird tiny exam boards) use 75 now.Jim Bentley wrote: On a sort of related (not really) aside, all our A-Level mock examinations had a maximum score of 100, i.e. if you answered everything correctly you would score 100. All of them except in Maths that is, for some reason the mock exams always had a maximum of 114, or 109, or 112, or some other seemingly-random figure between 100 and 120. Can anyone confirm if they can recall such a weird system? Maybe it still goes on, who knows.
That just proved you were correct, that second postMarc Meakin wrote: Oops, I rest my case