Jump to content

Tiny Little Things That Cause You Irrational Rage

PinkyB

By PinkyB
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

katie1997

katie1997

Posted
Posted

On a train going through a long tunnel when the person sitting behind me, having a conversation on their mobile (of course), constantly asks the other person who is clearly no longer connected..


"are you still there?"


NO - THEY BLOODY WELL AREN'T YOU STUPID FUCKING TWAT

randombloke

randombloke

Posted
Posted

* Could of instead of could have.

* Using incorrect reflexive pronouns, as in "I'll send it to yourself." I'll send it to YOU, you muppet. Beloved of Estate Agents and Pimps, I mean Recruitment Consultants.

* Apostrophe abuse.

* Seen or been instead of seeing or being.

* Labels stuck on the bottom of shoes.

* Shop assistants who manage to serve you without either speaking to you or looking at you.

* Anyone who isn't West Indian using backslang.

HonaloochieB

HonaloochieB

Posted
Posted

randombloke Wrote:

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

> * Could of instead of could have.

> * Using incorrect reflexive pronouns, as in "I'll

> send it to yourself." I'll send it to YOU, you

> muppet. Beloved of Estate Agents and Pimps, I

> mean Recruitment Consultants.

> * Apostrophe abuse.

> * Seen or been instead of seeing or being.

> * Labels stuck on the bottom of shoes.

> * Shop assistants who manage to serve you without

> either speaking to you or looking at you.

> * Anyone who isn't West Indian using backslang.


Could've in speech, which comes out as could of is perfectly fine, though in writing is abysmal. 'Could have' in speech is w*nkery almost beyond redemption.

I use the incorrect reflexive pronoun, to people that I like, in an informal sense, and I'm not a muppet.

Though there are worse epithets that could be applied to a person, c@nty-boll*cks, for example.

West Indian backslang?

Nap'aw?

ruffers

ruffers

Posted
Posted

HonaloochieB Wrote:

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

> Could've in speech, which comes out as could of is

> perfectly fine, though in writing is abysmal.


No no no. Actually deliberately saying "Could of" rather than in sounding like that in an accent is as bad as writing it, possibly worse. You could argue in some accents "could of" in writing is writing the sounds you hear, whereas saying the words "could of" is just plain wrong.

randombloke

randombloke

Posted
Posted

HonaloochieB Wrote:

>

> Could've in speech, which comes out as could of is

> perfectly fine, though in writing is abysmal.

> 'Could have' in speech is w*nkery almost beyond

> redemption.

> I use the incorrect reflexive pronoun, to people

> that I like, in an informal sense, and I'm not a

> muppet.

> Though there are worse epithets that could be

> applied to a person, c@nty-boll*cks, for example.

> West Indian backslang?

> Nap'aw?


Ah the joy that is an Internet forum...


Could of when written is an abomination. Could've when spoken is pretty much standard practice.

Lol @ c@nty boll*cks..."I've sent it to c@nty boll*cks"...sheer genius.


Of courfe the Englifh language is a movable feaft....thou art correct.

HonaloochieB

HonaloochieB

Posted
Posted

randombloke Wrote:

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

> HonaloochieB Wrote:

> >

> > Could've in speech, which comes out as could of

> is

> > perfectly fine, though in writing is abysmal.

> > 'Could have' in speech is w*nkery almost beyond

> > redemption.

> > I use the incorrect reflexive pronoun, to

> people

> > that I like, in an informal sense, and I'm not

> a

> > muppet.

> > Though there are worse epithets that could be

> > applied to a person, c@nty-boll*cks, for

> example.

> > West Indian backslang?

> > Nap'aw?

>

> Ah the joy that is an Internet forum...

>

> Could of when written is an abomination. Could've

> when spoken is pretty much standard practice.

> Lol @ c@nty boll*cks..."I've sent it to c@nty

> boll*cks"...sheer genius.

>

> Of courfe the Englifh language is a movable

> feaft....thou art correct.


Cheers RB, you're a gent. Make you completely correct on the apostrophes, and it ain't a Truss thing as far as I'm concerned.

I used to read Keith Waterhouse's column in the Mirror (that's how long ago it was, it was still worth reading) back in 19 mumblety-mumble and he railed against punctuation abuse/misuse.

He formed the AAAA - the Association for the Abolition of Abberant Apostrophes.

Used to get a lively correspondence.

Maybe time for a revival?

HonaloochieB

HonaloochieB

Posted
Posted

charliecharlie Wrote:

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

> threads about bus routes.....

> http://vancouver-pictures.com/d/412-2/No+Buses+Bey

> ond+This+point+sign+at+Lynn+Canyon+Park+in+Vancouv

> er.jpg


Alright Charlies, I'll bite, not getting it.

Colour me dim.

omniprescient

omniprescient

Posted
Posted

..people who use "effect" when they mean "affect" and vice-versa - the effect of which enrages me and affects my mental composure


...peole who use "it's " when it's ovbious that in so doing its meaning is affected


...people who use "advice" instead of "advise" - I advise then to take advice on this


people who use "license" (bare infintive of "to license") instead of "licence" (noun)


people who misuse the present subjunctive - I wish I "were" licensed to lend them advice so as to make its use less prevalent and so as to effect an improvement in the use of English grammar.


&c. &c.

silverfox

silverfox

Posted
Posted

...people who use "license" (bare infintive of "to license") instead of "licence" (noun)


The general rule s when verb, c when noun does not apply in American English so it's not strictly incorrect to use s in both cases as long as it's used consistently.


What does &c mean? Surely not etc?

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • eastdulwichavenger
      18th Birthday Venue needed

      By eastdulwichavenger · Posted

      Its a few years ago now, but I organised my end of year prom (for year 13) at Off the Cuff in Herne Hill - was on the cheaper side to rent and at that age, felt very cool and clubby. I had my own 18th at Whirled Cinema in Loughborough Junction but I'm not sure if they take event bookings like that anymore 
    • vladi
      ‘Welcome’ Donald Trump to Windsor when he arrives there tomorrow (Tuesday 16th September)

      By vladi · Posted

      You are right . It isn't going to change him for the better. Sending such a negative message is potentially counter-productive. Trump is narcissistic, arrogant, unpredictable, spiteful, divisive, and dishonest, with a penchant for a total a disregard for democratic norms.  He is one who bears a grudge so there's a case to be made for not offending him as he could react with a bunch of  adverse actions  such as  deciding to increase import tariffs on UK exports to the US.      
    • malumbu
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By malumbu · Posted

      Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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