aliceBB

Some bed frames used to consist of a simple steel frame, with what looked a bit like a chain linked fence stretched between it for the mattress to rest on.

 

Does this type of bed have a specific name?

 

Bloody uncomfortable?

It depends what you mean by 'you' (your character? what you say? or your actions?) and by which 'other people' we are talking about (your friends? your family? random people in the street? anonymous people on forums?), and it depends on what basis other people's opinions about your character/your behaviour are formed.

 

If those opinions spring from blind prejudice, they are not worth a fig.

 

If they are based on the experience of knowing you and being on the receiving end of your actions over a period of time, then those opinions/perceptions are clearly worth listening to.

Don't do it. A fan is as much use and far cheaper. Air con is often noisy and leaves you with a headache and dried-out sinuses.

Indeed!

 

I've become quite adept at extrapolating the real meaning of posts from an arbitrary jumble of grammatical faux pas!

 

Nicely put. But who is to say what 'the real meaning' of any utterance/post is? The author, or the reader? Or someone else?

 

---------- Post added 18-06-2017 at 22:54 ----------

 

I'm fascinated by the idea that in the 50s and 60s, women (and men) were slimmer, more smartly dressed and elegant.

 

It would certainly seem to be the case if you look at photographs from that period. I don't doubt people were thinner' - any photograph of a crowded beach in the 50s will demonstrate that. You can see most people's ribs.

 

But elegance...I'm not sure.it could be simply that photographers generally only photographed smart, elegant people. Perhaps all the scruffy, poorly dressed people were too busy slaving away earning a crust or doing the laundry or trying to feed their families, to get dressed up for a photograph.

 

Rudeness/swearing - definitely worse, in my (obviously subjective) experience!

 

My mum tells me people smelt a lot sweatier in those days, btw...

I've been following this story quite carefully and unless I have missed something (or unless the police are witholding something), what I find baffling is this.

 

They say the recent excavations have 'convinced' them that Ben died in an accident (rather than being abducted). They seem to be basing their 'conviction' on the discovery of a toy which Ben owned, which was found in the site 750m away (from his grandparents' property where he was last seen alive), to which site earth from the Needham property was removed by a digger driver.

 

Yet there is no mention of any human remains/DNA being discovered at either site.

 

How can they rule out the possibility that the child was indeed snatched, the toy was left behind and inadvertently moved, along with a load of earth, to the further site? Surely the discovery of the toy is not proof that the child was killed, is it?

 

Or have I missed something?

(If he's not) Who else is, in your opinion?

 

Why does there have to be anyone else?

I agree with Anna - check the tension. Also check whether the spool (and the top cotton) are correctly threaded.

anyway many working class 'youth' are more right wing, streetwise and have not been fancifully brainwashed at any university !

Who or what do you think 'fancifully brainwashes' students?

 

Please explain why you think people who are unable or unwilling to pursue higher education are likely to be much more intelligent when it comes to politics (as you seem to imply).

If he can get the cheeky girls signed up, then that would be magic.

 

That's Lembit Opik , not Boris.

Can't stand the man.... too much up his own a**e.

 

Absolutely. Self-obsessed, self-congratulatory luvvy.

Some kinds of stone are porous and will allow water to soak in. It only really matters if there is no cavity in the wall and the water ends up inside the building.

 

There are clear silicone treatments which some builders claim are effective barriers against water ingress, but you have to allow the wall to dry out first before applying - so at the end of a hot summer, ideally. It's not cheap, either - allow several £k.

 

I do not know of any DIY treatment which works.

I cannot see how it would involve extra work for the electrician to fix them to the cabinets rather than the walls. It's surely quicker to attach to cabinets (than drilling into walls and cutting holes in cabinet backs).

He might have liked them. His feelings may have been honest even though his identity wasn't.

 

On the other hand he was just after easy sex from some dewy eyed protesters.

 

Is anyone reminded of that episode of "the thin blue line" where rowan atkinsons wife joins some green protest?

 

There were at least four of them, not just one, though.

He didn't actually like them did he? Or was he just after a bit Eco how's-ya-father.

 

Sorry, who do you mean?

What the coppers did was pretty bad, but when you live in such an environment it can be difficult to keep reality and pretense separate. It must have been traumatic for them too.

Really? How do you know?

 

 

We're any of the ladies fit?

What?

I pretend not to be one.

 

That sounds like a challenge for you.

It is not uncommon to project a contrived image of ourselves, especially in front of the opposite sex.

 

It is however unethical and immoral to be paid out fo the public purse to construct an identity for yourself which you use deliberately to mislead someone over a period of years. It's a bit different from you pretending (?) to be a tosser in order to get someone into bed for the night.

Men and women have misled each other, both in and into relationships since time began, if these particular women need to be compensated then there are quite a few blokes out there that should compensated for bringing up the children of other men when and if they find out.

Apparently one in seven children of married couples are fathered by someone other than the husband.

 

 

As for the comment about it being rape, sorry EL Cid but that is cobblers !

Yes, I have to agree with you.

Disagree they consented to have a relationship with the person except they were misled as to that persons occupation.

 

The above makes little sense, but I think it can only mean: 'they consented to have a relationship with the person, except they were misled as to that person's occupation'.

 

No. They were misled as to that person's whole identity. That's more of a deception than simply being misled as to occupation.

Interesting that all the people conned were women. I wonder whether any men have been unknowingly lured into relationships with female police spies?

 

No? Wonder why.

For the avoidance of confusion, in claiming that he is offering junior doctors an 11% pay rise, Hunt is conveniently omitting to mention that the changes in the way shifts are paid means that most doctors will actually suffer a 20-30% pay cut compared with their current renumeration for the same hours.

 

Doctors want a 7 days a week NHS as much as the rest of us, but not at the cost of patient safety or doctors working for nothing. The last year has seen the largest exodus ever from the NHS by doctors and nurses facing intolerable pressures - many of them are heading for Australia or New Zealand or the USA, where salaries are higher and the work-life balance much more sane.

 

Who can blame them? The government's attitude towards them is disgraceful. Hunt needs to go.

Between you and roots, and as a reader of the thread, I thought personally you had both raised the subject matter up a notch..it was getting rather interesting, but then as you suggested, in popped a bit of sanctimonious waffle.

 

Thank you! I'd be interested to know what other people think about the way in which meanings of words change over time and in different contexts*. I bet most people can think of words/phrases from their childhood which meant one thing then, and something else now, or (currently) non-standard words/phrases which sound perfectly natural and 'right' in one context but not in another.

 

(*'Tragedy', for example).

There are big differences in dialect and accent in my home town, just as there are here. When I was at school in the 50s and 60s, it didn't matter how we spoke at home, we were all expected to speak 'properly' in class. For example 'I were and we was' was frowned on. Our teachers were aware that how we presented ourselves was important for our futures.

 

In hindsight, I think it was helpful. Given that communication is so important, being able to adapt ones speech appropriately must be a positive. I don't mean we should lose our regional accents, although really broad ones and strong dialects can be really hard to understand for anyone outside the speakers locality or background.

 

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. It's all about context. School is a formal context where you can practise all kinds of behaviour (including the way you speak and write) which will help you to reach your potential in life. It's different from home.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2015 at 22:24 ----------

 

By the way, judging by the results of the poll, it looks like you're in a very slim minority.

 

Does missing the point come naturally to you, or do you have to practise?!

 

All that is revealed by the results of the poll is that a majority of people on this thread who bothered to respond think that 'would of' is 'not acceptable now'. As I've shown, that's meaningless since it ignores context. If the question were framed better, e.g. 'Is 'would of' acceptable in formal contexts such as journalism or job interviews'? then I would have been one of the first to vote 'No'. But it wasn't...so I didn't vote.

 

Since, by your own definition, language is defined by people, it looks like maybe it's you who is "hoist by your own petard"

Again.. read what I said!

 

I'm ending my conversation with you now, as I'm bored by your simplistic view of the topic. I don't expect I'm the first nor will I be the last. I hope you don't have this effect on people in your real life. Good luck

The English dictionary.

 

You are wrong about that. The OED includes 'until' as one meaning of 'while':

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/while

 

I didn't make the rules. Besides, I was only replying with examples in the spirit of the thread, as opposed to a deep and meaningful debate about etymology.

Who do you think makes the rules?

 

And if all you want to do is trot out examples of language use which you think demonstrate other people's stupidity, why are you still engaged in this discussion with me?

 

Clothes are not an integral part of a person that developed through childhood.

Actually, they are. They are an expression of identity and personality, which are formed and develop throughout a person's life.

 

A 25 year old who has lived all their life in Sheffield and suddenly decides to emulate American pronunciation will always sound daft to me, but it's clear we're not going to agree so let's just agree to disagree in that.

Whatever. So you're OK with the use of the third person plural possessive adjective ('their') in relation to a singular subject ('A 25 year old who has...' etc)? That's not in your rule book, surely?! Hoist by your own petard, I'd say.... (Back to farts again!)

I'm well aware that it's widely and wrongly used.

Wrong according to whom?

 

Please drop the condescending tone.

I'm not the one declaring pompously that other people's use of language is 'wrong', with no regard to context.

 

There's a big difference between speaking the way you do because of how and where you were brought up, and sycophantic tendencies to short term fashionable pronunciation

To some extent, but it is only a difference in degree, rather than in kind. What we choose to say, and how we choose to say it, is always connected closely with cultural influences on us, whether we are conscious of it or not.

 

Drop the intellectual snobbery! There are fashions in language as there are in clothes. Do you think people are always wrong to wear fashionable clothes rather than a suit and tie?