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

    • Zak
      Lordship Lane Post Office Closure

      By Zak · Posted

      As a result of the Horizon scandal it now seems very clear that the Post Office management are highly disingenuous and not be trusted!  There needs to be a campaign launched to challenge the threatened closure, unless the Post Office can demonstrate beyond doubt that the branch is loss making - and even then it could argued that better management could address this. I hope the local media take this up and our MP  and a few demonstrations outside wouldn’t do any harm. Bad publicity can be very effective!         
    • David Peckham
      Dirty pool, Dulwich Leisure Centre

      By David Peckham · Posted

      Unlikely. It would take a little more than a bit of Milton to alter the pH of eighty-odd thousand gallons of water.
    • jazzer
      To the thief

      By jazzer · Posted

      It actually feels as though what I said is being analytically analysed word by word, almost letter by better. I really don't believe that I should have to explain myself to the level it seems someone wants me to. Clearly someones been watching way too much Big Brother. 
    • malumbu
      Lordship Lane Post Office Closure

      By malumbu · Posted

      Sadly they don't do the full range of post office services

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...