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

    • Eats Dulwich
      Best Sunday/Easter Pub Lunch?

      By Eats Dulwich · Posted

      There are so many variables. Good chefs can having bad nights, post-Brexit staff shortages, your dish might be brilliant, your friend might order something that's inedible. In the end I think the best option is just to go to the restaurant which has the best overall reviews. If all the reviews are bad then avoid, but even if all the reviews are good that's not a cast iron gaurantee. 
    • Sue
      Best Sunday/Easter Pub Lunch?

      By Sue · Posted

      The trouble is that pub management and chefs are constantly changing, so what might be fantastic on one occasion  becomes terrible a short time later, and vice versa. Two of the worst pub lunches I've had locally were at the Dog in the village and the Plough, but both those were some time ago. We had an absolutely appalling Christmas lunch on Christmas Day at The Cherry Tree, which was also exorbitantly expensive, so unless their chef (I use the term loosely) has changed, I wouldn't advise eating there. The menu looked amazing. We thought we would treat ourselves. Never again 😭
    • Eats Dulwich
      Best Sunday/Easter Pub Lunch?

      By Eats Dulwich · Posted

      If you've seen the original longer post then you'll know that you've taken that out of context. I don't charge but didn't feel I even needed to say that – you've made it sound like I do charge and that's why I deleted this part of the post saying I don't charge. When I read back what I'd written it sounded like I was defending myself against criticisms that hadn't even been made so i cut it out. And now you've made that kind of criticism anyway I should've left it in.  What do you mean "not charging people to read your reviews of their local restaurants."?  You make it sound like i'm sneaking into SE22 from somewhere else. I live here - they are reviews of my local restaurants!
    • Sue
      Thames Water - water meters

      By Sue · Posted

      Sorry to hear that.  Whether it works out cheaper depends entirely on the amount of water you use. You used to be able to work out via a calculation on Thames Water's website whether it would work out cheaper in your particular situation, to decide whether or not to have a meter installed. I don't know whether you still can, but once you've had it installed it's probably too late, although I think it used to be that you could change back to the old billing system if the meter wasn't saving you money?

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...