Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Feckin kids playing mobile phone music on the

> bus!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :


I read about this on another Forum.

General consensus: Many are "testing" the other travellers hoping they will say something!

People (and I'm really not looking at you moos) correcting other people's spelling or grammar. In an essay or work email, okay. On here or the like, no no no, please don't! It's smug at best, and frankly cruel IMO.


One of my best friends used to post on here reasonably regularly. He's very bright, but can't spell for shite, which he admits. One day he came on here and made, what I thought was, a very good point. However, he was roundly slated for his spelling and grammar, and has never posted since!


Edited for spelling error. Oh the irony!

That's a really sad story Keef and I'm sorry your friend isn't posting any more.


Personally I wouldn't correct an individual's grammar (unless I knew them really well) because that is cruel.


I see grammatical errors every day in mail-shots and CVs (I kid you not) and it bugs me. It just feels like our language is being eroded. Texting has a lot to answer for.


Is it just me or is our vocabulary shrinking? For instance: ?AWESOME?. Every time I hear that I want to smack someone in the face and shout ?get a fekking vocabulary?!


Also edited for a spelling mistake. Irony is catching.

Edited for a second spelling mistake - oh the shame of it.

I'll hold my hands up and admit to having become a bit of a pedant in my old age but I prefer to see any comments as helping the afflicted person rather than having a go. I'm sure I do it in the nicest possible way.

And, I hasten to add, I'm sure I'm not beyond grammatical errors myself.


Vocabulary is shrinking - you just have to read books written in the 18th century to realise how eloquent some people were in day to day exchanges. Not that I am against language evolving just that it seems a shame to lose.

Asset Wrote:

-I'll hold my hands up and admit to having become a bit of a pedant in my old age but I prefer to see

any comments as helping the afflicted person rather than having a go. I'm sure I do it in the

nicest possible way.And, I hasten to add, I'm sure I'm not beyond grammatical errors myself. Vocabulary is shrinking - you just have to read books written in the 18th century to realise how eloquent some people were in day to day exchanges. Not that I am against language evolving just that

> it seems a shame to lose.



Mek I tell u likkle scinting,zimi ya? me a tawk how me waan fi tawk.

Bout clear Hinglish, a wah dat? Me a mek yoo know seh dis ya part a fi me lexicon,seen??

You betta move a guh weh wid ya hung,drarn an quartaB)

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mek I tell u likkle scinting,zimi ya? me a tawk

> how me waan fi tawk.

> Bout clear Hinglish, a wah dat? Me a mek yoo know

> seh dis ya part a fi me lexicon,seen??

> You betta move a guh weh wid ya hung,drarn an

> quartaB)


Tony, I don't think I'll be alone when I say, this is only marginally less intelligible than your normal posts.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

Mek I tell u likkle scinting,zimi ya? me a tawk how me waan fi tawk.

Bout clear Hinglish, a wah dat? Me a mek yoo know seh dis ya part a fi me lexicon,seen??

You betta move a guh weh wid ya hung,drarn an

quartaB)


Tony, I don't think I'll be alone when I say, this

is only marginally less intelligible than your

normal posts.



David: I don't think I'll be alone whrn I say,this is only marginally less supercilious,smug and pompous than your normal posts.:)-D

Naturally do not take this personally but you give the impression of a Country Bumpkin dazzled by London's bright lights which seem to have blinded you to London's harsh little "realities" but yu WILL learn ..in time:))

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Supercilious,smug AND pompous...do I win a prize?

>

> And it was said with tongue in cheek. Never mind.

> I'll learn one day.


Now Davy I did NOT say you were not intelligent.Its obvious that you are. So,you of all people,should know that tongue-in-cheek does not usually identify itself in print unless it has certain accompaniments like :)or maybe :))

Thus whats a geezer to do? I was left with no option but to take your comments at face value.

I mean a blokes gotta defend 'imself int he?:))

p.s. Please note to avoid any ambiguity I put what I considered to be the relevant emoticons next to my comments(tu)


btw: Who was tied to a rock and tortured by a vulture in Greek Mythology?

Its for the ?125,000 Millionaire question and I have no idea?...Any idea M8?:-$

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> Supercilious,smug AND pompous...do I win a

> prize? And it was said with tongue in cheek. Never

> mind. I'll learn one day.

>

> Now Davy

>

> btw: Who was tied to a rock and tortured by a

> vulture in Greek Mythology?

> Its for the ?125,000 Millionaire question and I

> have no idea?...Any idea M8?:-$


Remind me not to have you as a phone a friend when I get on! You are out of time,I'm afraid.

The answer was Shakin' Stevens,I think;-)...unless that was the next one....

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People (and I'm really not looking at you moos)

> correcting other people's spelling or grammar. In

> an essay or work email, okay. On here or the like,

> no no no, please don't! It's smug at best, and

> frankly cruel IMO.

>

> One of my best friends used to post on here

> reasonably regularly. He's very bright, but can't

> spell for shite, which he admits. One day he came

> on here and made, what I thought was, a very good

> point. However, he was roundly slated for his

> spelling and grammar, and has never posted since!

>

> Edited for spelling error. Oh the irony!




Keef I know how your friend feels,some people on here really get my goat. Fucking cheek to correct one's grammatical errors. Especially when they seem to be mine a lot of the time.

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Are they looking/hoping for a confrontation? Why?

Boredom? Please explain.


Yes in some cases there are looking for a confrontation,some out of boredom.

Some just don't care about others,sadly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...