Stevo985 Posted February 20, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: You're right, my comment was unfair. It just irks me (a lot) that so many people, still, in the year 2016, have this idea that 'sport's not for girls'. That's not what he's saying. BBC's coverage annoys me too. I have no problem with them giving it coverage, increasing it or trying to get people interested. But for me they are overexposing it. Women's football gets more coverage on their website than european football. It's not a gender thing, it's the BBC giving way more column inches to something that doesn't have the support to back it up. It would be the same if they were pushing tiddlywinks really hard. The complaint would be the same thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 20, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Xela said: I shall duly learn my lesson and only make posts concerning BMW/Audi drivers going forward They're rubbish at reversing, too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 20, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 20, 2016 In fact the phrase "going forward" seriously hacks me off. STOP SAYING IT. Instead say nothing or if you must, say "in the future, or in future, but it really isn't necessary. Time only goes one way (except when the clocks change), so it's completely unnecessary. Also people starting sentences with "So". "How did you make that Claire?" "So, I got all the ingredients together then I...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted February 20, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: In fact the phrase "going forward" seriously hacks me off. STOP SAYING IT. Instead say nothing or if you must, say "in the future, or in future, but it really isn't necessary. Time only goes one way (except when the clocks change), so it's completely unnecessary. I know this purely through QI, but have just looked it up to confirm. The Aymara people, mainly of Bolivia but also Peru, Chile and Argentina view time differently to us. They consider the future to be behind us and the past in front of us. The suggestion, which makes sense thinking about it, is the past has happened and can be "seen" while the future is unknown and cannot be seen. I know this doesn't help you out, but I thought it may be something to consider going forward (or backwards) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RimmyJimmer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: In fact the phrase "going forward" seriously hacks me off. STOP SAYING IT. Instead say nothing or if you must, say "in the future, or in future, but it really isn't necessary. Time only goes one way (except when the clocks change), so it's completely unnecessary. Also people starting sentences with "So". "How did you make that Claire?" "So, I got all the ingredients together then I...." Oh man, this x 1000!!! This irritates me much more than it should but I just can't ignore it. When did 'in the future' become redundant? I think the people who spout this rubbish believe they are sounding intellectual, & modern. It's part of this whole new modern corporate chatter that is designed to fool us into thinking the 'spouter' knows what they're talking about. (See our own fantastic Mr Fox!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RimmyJimmer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: In fact the phrase "going forward" seriously hacks me off. STOP SAYING IT. Instead say nothing or if you must, say "in the future, or in future, but it really isn't necessary. Time only goes one way (except when the clocks change), so it's completely unnecessary. Also people starting sentences with "So". "How did you make that Claire?" "So, I got all the ingredients together then I...." Oh I forgot to mention when the sales girl in my local electrical store told me i would be 'future proofing' myself by purchasing a 4k tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 20, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2016 I say going forward. Only at work though, I think. But I agree with the "So..." sentiment. Especially on Facebook. Why are you starting your post with the word "So". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RimmyJimmer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 26 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: I say going forward. Only at work though, I think Well stop it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Stevo985 said: That's not what he's saying. BBC's coverage annoys me too. I have no problem with them giving it coverage, increasing it or trying to get people interested. But for me they are overexposing it. Women's football gets more coverage on their website than european football. It's not a gender thing, it's the BBC giving way more column inches to something that doesn't have the support to back it up. It would be the same if they were pushing tiddlywinks really hard. The complaint would be the same thing. . . . and the complaint would still be rubbish. The BBC is 'overexposing' women's sport (ha!) because they are trying to create a market for interest in it. You complain that women's football gets more coverage than European football on the BBC website. To which my answer is, it hardly emphasises it, firstly, and secondly, there are approximately 10,000 other websites dealing with European football. You're really not being deprived. One recent study of national newspaper stories (summarised here) found that coverage of men's sport outweighs women's sport by 20-to-1. I'm not going to lie, it seems extremely churlish to try to remove the 3% of total coverage that they currently get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The Birmingham Mail are blocking you from reading their articles if you have an ad blocker running. Even if you disable it for any webpages with birmingham mail in the URL. words removed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted February 20, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2016 Regarding the terms people use in every day conversation, it must have been mentioned on here before, but the (now accepted) way the word "random" is used. To save you the bother of having to read/scroll past me droning on, I shall spoiler it. Spoiler "Up to anything this weekend?" "Yeah actually, I'm clay pigeon shooting." "Really? How random!" Is it random? If I chose the weekend activity of clay pigeon shooting out of a hat I suppose it could be considered random. Otherwise I'd have described it as unexpected from the other person's viewpoint. It seems that "random" officially means "unexpected" or "unusual". Another example- "Who was that who just said hello to you?" "Oh just some random bloke." A stranger then. I think I dislike how it sounds within an otherwise normal sentence more than anything else. To me, "I just randomly met your brother." sounds terrible while "I just had a chance encounter with your brother." works better. And before anyone says it - yes, what a random thing to piss me off that shouldn't. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The Birmingham Mail are blocking you from reading their articles if you have an ad blocker running. Even if you disable it for any webpages with birmingham mail in the URL. words removed. It was a good way to make me just blacklist their URL entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 23 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said: Hide contents To me, "I just randomly met your brother." sounds terrible while "I just had a chance encounter with your brother." works better. For the Bronte sisters, perhaps! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Albrighton Posted February 20, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: For the Bronte sisters, perhaps! Oh why doth thou forsake me, Hanoi? I am wounded!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 44 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said: Regarding the terms people use in every day conversation, it must have been mentioned on here before, but the (now accepted) way the word "random" is used. To save you the bother of having to read/scroll past me droning on, I shall spoiler it. Reveal hidden contents "Up to anything this weekend?" "Yeah actually, I'm clay pigeon shooting." "Really? How random!" Is it random? If I chose the weekend activity of clay pigeon shooting out of a hat I suppose it could be considered random. Otherwise I'd have described it as unexpected from the other person's viewpoint. It seems that "random" officially means "unexpected" or "unusual". Another example- "Who was that who just said hello to you?" "Oh just some random bloke." A stranger then. I think I dislike how it sounds within an otherwise normal sentence more than anything else. To me, "I just randomly met your brother." sounds terrible while "I just had a chance encounter with your brother." works better. And before anyone says it - yes, what a random thing to piss me off that shouldn't. 'Epic' is another word that is annoyingly misused. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The use of 'casually' really boils my piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, RimmyJimmer said: Oh man, this x 1000!!! This irritates me much more than it should but I just can't ignore it. When did 'in the future' become redundant? I think the people who spout this rubbish believe they are sounding intellectual, & modern. It's part of this whole new modern corporate chatter that is designed to fool us into thinking the 'spouter' knows what they're talking about. (See our own fantastic Mr Fox!) Using language like that is how I got my job in the first place. So, going forward i shall continue to do it... but only in work meetings! Edited February 20, 2016 by Xela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Just now, Milfner said: The use of 'casually' really boils my piss. It literally boils my piss Another word used completely incorrectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 There's a word often used in old books to describe chance happenings and I can't remember what it is but I know it when I see it. As I try to remember it, the word 'providence' comes to mind so think it might be somehow related to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 15 minutes ago, useless said: There's a word often used in old books to describe chance happenings and I can't remember what it is but I know it when I see it. As I try to remember it, the word 'providence' comes to mind so think it might be somehow related to that. Yes, that's the one (although unlike 'chance', 'providence' is a noun, so instead of 'a chance encounter' it would be 'that encounter was the work of providence' or similar). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts