Discussion:
OT a rant about "up to" in advertisements
Add Reply
DavidK
2020-07-18 09:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?

I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Mike
2020-07-18 09:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
I’m in the 20% who don’t suffer hair loss, I’m very thin on top but... it
doesn’t bother me at all, I’ve been going thinner and thinner since school
days, but I don’t suffer at all!
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2020-07-18 11:36:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 09:45:10 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
I’m in the 20% who don’t suffer hair loss, I’m very thin on top but... it
doesn’t bother me at all, I’ve been going thinner and thinner since school
days, but I don’t suffer at all!
Doesn't that mean you suffer hair loss but don't suffer *from* it?

Taking the bible quote "suffer little children to come unto me" means
'allow' (I think - it's certainly not an instruction to the children).
So maybe "up to 80% of men suffer hair loss" just means "20% of men shave
their heads"?

Those who don't allow it, suffer from it because hair falls out and doesn't
replenish itself* anyway.

Personally I suffer from hair loss because it falls out all the time and
winds itself around the brush on the vacuum cleaner, causing a nuisance to
me and sometimes damage to the machine. I still have too much hair.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-18 13:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
Even if they did, they could claim it had already been sold.
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
Post by DavidK
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Nothing.

The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often I
think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright). But tightening down on advertising in
general isn't going to happen, as there always seems to be something
more important to spent limited parliamentary time on. (Current bugbears
for me: the use of doctors/dentists in ad.s [used to be banned - why was
that changed?], and as for gambling - they're just laughing, hard, at
us.)
Post by Penny
Post by Mike
I’m in the 20% who don’t suffer hair loss, I’m very thin on top but... it
doesn’t bother me at all, I’ve been going thinner and thinner since school
days, but I don’t suffer at all!
I've had a thin patch on the crown since I was a baby (they tell me!).
Doesn't seem to be getting any thinner though, and I'm not aware of any
loss anywhere else (those who saw me at the zoombecue know that). I
don't _think_ it would _worry_ me if I did, though. (I've even wondered
about electrolysis, around the mouth - but have heard rumours it isn't
permanent.)
Post by Penny
Doesn't that mean you suffer hair loss but don't suffer *from* it?
Taking the bible quote "suffer little children to come unto me" means
'allow' (I think - it's certainly not an instruction to the children).
I don't think the biblical sense (just "allow", as far as I can see)
applies here; there's a definite negative connotation. It would be
better to say "... _experience_ hair loss" - that's neutral - but of
course that wouldn't suit the (advertising) agenda of most of the people
saying it.
Post by Penny
So maybe "up to 80% of men suffer hair loss" just means "20% of men shave
their heads"?
Those who don't allow it, suffer from it because hair falls out and doesn't
replenish itself* anyway.
Aargh - an unmatched asterisk! I assume in this case either an
unintentional keystroke, or you just forgot the corresponding clause.
But in advertising copy, it's often used to link to weasel words - which
are increasingly omitted: IMO unmatched asterisks in advertising copy
ought to trigger an automatic large fine at the very least (-:.
Post by Penny
Personally I suffer from hair loss because it falls out all the time and
winds itself around the brush on the vacuum cleaner, causing a nuisance to
me and sometimes damage to the machine. I still have too much hair.
I wish it didn't fall off - in my case I am not aware of it coming out
of my head, but it must break off: I had visions of a fine rope of
pigtail or a magnificent beard (a la TNMF for example), but neither seem
to get much below collar length.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Thay have a saying for it: /Geiz ist geil/, which roughly translates as, "It's
sexy to be stingly". - Joe Fattorini, RT insert 2016/9/10-16
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-18 13:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often I
think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright)
It's not just sloppy use of figures but very often ignorant use of the
English language. Just this morning I was asked in a survey about
whether I "regularly" did certain things, such as sell items on eBay. I
knew perfectly well they meant "frequently" but I chose to answer
(honestly) the question they actually asked.

Quite often it is impossible to give an honest answer in these surveys
because the honest response is just not available. Eg, "what is the
value of your personal or company car" and the choice of responses is a
selection of values and "Prefer not to answer." No option for "No such
thing."
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
John Ashby
2020-07-18 15:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often I
think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright)
It's not just sloppy use of figures but very often ignorant use of the
English language.  Just this morning I was asked in a survey about
whether I "regularly" did certain things, such as sell items on eBay.  I
knew perfectly well they meant "frequently" but I chose to answer
(honestly) the question they actually asked.
Like the man who was looking forward to marriage for the promise it held
of regular sex, only to be disappointed except for Christmas and his
birthday.

john
Mike
2020-07-18 15:58:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often I
think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright)
It's not just sloppy use of figures but very often ignorant use of the
English language.  Just this morning I was asked in a survey about
whether I "regularly" did certain things, such as sell items on eBay.  I
knew perfectly well they meant "frequently" but I chose to answer
(honestly) the question they actually asked.
Like the man who was looking forward to marriage for the promise it held
of regular sex, only to be disappointed except for Christmas and his
birthday.
john
When I attended a ‘Preparing for Retirement’ seminar organised by my
employer, one of the speakers explained about some of the changes to
prepare for in retirement; having more time but probably less income to
spend on leisure amongst other things,he also asked if we had heard of
Saga? He then explained that it stood for ‘Sex Annually, Generally August.’
--
Toodle Pip
Joe Kerr
2020-07-18 17:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
When I attended a ‘Preparing for Retirement’ seminar organised by my
employer, one of the speakers explained about some of the changes to
prepare for in retirement; having more time but probably less income to
spend on leisure amongst other things,he also asked if we had heard of
Saga? He then explained that it stood for ‘Sex Annually, Generally August.’
Taking that in the context of having more time and less money it sounds
like you can take an entire month over it (if you have the stamina) but
can't pay for it.
--
Ric
Mike
2020-07-19 08:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Kerr
Post by Mike
When I attended a ‘Preparing for Retirement’ seminar organised by my
employer, one of the speakers explained about some of the changes to
prepare for in retirement; having more time but probably less income to
spend on leisure amongst other things,he also asked if we had heard of
Saga? He then explained that it stood for ‘Sex Annually, Generally August.’
Taking that in the context of having more time and less money it sounds
like you can take an entire month over it (if you have the stamina) but
can't pay for it.
Or as the song has it ‘Takes all night to do what we used to do all night.’
--
Toodle Pip
Sally Thompson
2020-07-18 17:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by John Ashby
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often I
think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright)
It's not just sloppy use of figures but very often ignorant use of the
English language.  Just this morning I was asked in a survey about
whether I "regularly" did certain things, such as sell items on eBay.  I
knew perfectly well they meant "frequently" but I chose to answer
(honestly) the question they actually asked.
Like the man who was looking forward to marriage for the promise it held
of regular sex, only to be disappointed except for Christmas and his
birthday.
john
When I attended a ‘Preparing for Retirement’ seminar organised by my
employer, one of the speakers explained about some of the changes to
prepare for in retirement; having more time but probably less income to
spend on leisure amongst other things,he also asked if we had heard of
Saga? He then explained that it stood for ‘Sex Annually, Generally August.’
I always understood that it stood for Sex And Games for the Aged.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-18 20:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The very sloppy (at least; deliberate intent to mislead, more often
I think) use of figures in advertising is long overdue for tighter
regulation (to take the first example above, I think "up to ... off"
should be banned outright)
It's not just sloppy use of figures but very often ignorant use of the
English language. Just this morning I was asked in a survey about
whether I "regularly" did certain things, such as sell items on eBay. I
knew perfectly well they meant "frequently" but I chose to answer
(honestly) the question they actually asked.
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
Post by Jenny M Benson
Quite often it is impossible to give an honest answer in these surveys
because the honest response is just not available. Eg, "what is the
value of your personal or company car" and the choice of responses is a
selection of values and "Prefer not to answer." No option for "No such
thing."
Yes, it's a "when did you stop beating your wife" type problem, isn't
it.

Especially when they've already asked the obvious question earlier in
the survey: that's just bone-dead survey programming. In your example,
it would be an earlier question "do you have a car?", which if answered
no, _ought_ to turn off subsequent related questions.

There's also the assumption that everyone ... has a car in your case,
but a commoner one is has a mobile 'phone; although I do, since it gets
turned on about three times a year, I see no point in giving it. If a
website _insists_ on a 'phone number - and an irritating number do - I
give them one of their own (saynoto0870 is useful there).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

if you're paying for something, you're the customer; if you're getting it
free, you're the product.
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-18 21:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10. I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-18 21:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend
X to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10. I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
To be fair, I suppose there's an implied "if they asked you". And I _do_
recommend - not out of the blue, but if asked. I've been very content
with First Direct until the last month or so, when I've seen indication
that they too might be moving more towards on-line (I like them because
I can do everything over the 'phone), but that might be just a glitch,
we'll see. And as for supermarkets, they're a major subject of
discussion on UMRA, aren't they! Though, OK, I wouldn't recommend any
single one - but if someone asked me, I'd certainly have plenty to say
(more than they wanted to hear, almost certainly!) about all the ones I
have experience of using (which I think is all but Netto, of the major
chains).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Listen, three-eyes, don't you try to out-wierd me, I get stranger things than
you free with my breakfast cereal. (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the link episode)
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-19 08:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10. I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
LW

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Mike
2020-07-19 08:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10. I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
Quite! (And if there is a question about why I gave whatever score I gave
as my answer, I’ll tell them that I don’t make such recommendations as I
value my friends and wish to keep them!)
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2020-07-19 08:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:21:25 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
Post by Mike
Post by Jenny M Benson
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10. I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
Quite! (And if there is a question about why I gave whatever score I gave
as my answer, I’ll tell them that I don’t make such recommendations as I
value my friends and wish to keep them!)
I usually say my friends have different needs from my own and are smart
enough to figure out what suits them.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-19 09:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Quite! (And if there is a question about why I gave whatever score I gave
as my answer, I’ll tell them that I don’t make such recommendations as I
value my friends and wish to keep them!)
Oh, nice one! I usually just say "I don't do that sort of thing."
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-19 11:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Quite! (And if there is a question about why I gave whatever score I gave
as my answer, I’ll tell them that I don’t make such recommendations as I
value my friends and wish to keep them!)
Oh, nice one! I usually just say "I don't do that sort of thing."
It's a line from Hitchhiker's; I don't know if DNA was quoting from an
earlier source. (I always assumed he invented it, but - like Oscar - I
don't mind if he stole it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of the
good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5
Mike
2020-07-19 12:39:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Quite! (And if there is a question about why I gave whatever score I gave
as my answer, I’ll tell them that I don’t make such recommendations as I
value my friends and wish to keep them!)
Oh, nice one! I usually just say "I don't do that sort of thing."
It's a line from Hitchhiker's; I don't know if DNA was quoting from an
earlier source. (I always assumed he invented it, but - like Oscar - I
don't mind if he stole it.)
As far as I am concerned (as a non-HHGTTG listener) the remark is original
to me.
--
Toodle Pip
Anne B
2020-07-19 12:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10.  I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
+1.

Anne B
Sid Nuncius
2020-07-19 18:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend
X to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10.  I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank,
or my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
+1.
I think that's a bit harsh, actually and I'm with JPG on this.

I agree that I certainly wouldn't offer an unsolicited recommendation of
any company to friends or family. However, *if asked,* I would
certainly recommend my bank and my energy supplier, for example, and I
base my answer on that. If I've agreed to do a survey of that kind[1]
for a company I think are good, I prefer to encourage them by answering
the question they meant to ask rather than give a strictly logical
answer which doesn't reflect my rating of their service.


[1]I very rarely do.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Anne B
2020-07-19 12:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?". I very
rarely give the correct answer, which would be yes: I expected the
experience to be shitty, so yes, my experience did indeed meet my
expectations. But that's not what they _meant_ to ask. (If the
experience was _better_ than I expected, I ought to answer no, too!)
The other one which annoys me is "How likely Would you be to recommend X
to friends or family?" and there's a scale from 1 to 10.  I nearly
always score it about 1 or 2 because I just DON'T recommend my bank, or
my energy company or a particular supermarket to anyone, however
satisfied I am with their service.
Something that particularly annoys me when confronted with a
questionnaire from Which?, who (which?) ought to know better.

Anne B
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-19 08:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
My unfavourite one of those questions is something like "did your
experience using our website meet with your expectations?".
I find myself irritated by those surveys that first ask you about
how often you are doing various things, then ask how it has
changed over a specified period.

If I have not, for instance, eaten meat, it feels inappropriate
to also respond that my consumption has stayed the same. If they
then ask "Are you trying to eat less meat?" the response "No",
though logically correct, also feels wrong.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Penny
2020-07-19 09:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 09:17:57 +0100, Chris J Dixon <***@cdixon.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Chris J Dixon
I find myself irritated by those surveys that first ask you about
how often you are doing various things, then ask how it has
changed over a specified period.
If I have not, for instance, eaten meat, it feels inappropriate
to also respond that my consumption has stayed the same. If they
then ask "Are you trying to eat less meat?" the response "No",
though logically correct, also feels wrong.
Oh, I always answer those truthfully but sometimes point out how stupid
questions like that are. If you find yourself answering a survey question
with the answer you think they want, you're doing it wrong - and so are
they.

My least favourite question is 'what was your job before you retired' with
a long list to pick from. Nobody has paid me for working in a job since
1998 (unless you count the way-below-minimum-wage Carers Allowance), though
I continue to work. I have selected a variety of options over the past 6
years (since my state pension kicked in) but find it easier to answer 'not
working, not looking for work', which is not true but saves time.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-19 11:46:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Chris J Dixon
I find myself irritated by those surveys that first ask you about
how often you are doing various things, then ask how it has
changed over a specified period.
If I have not, for instance, eaten meat, it feels inappropriate
to also respond that my consumption has stayed the same. If they
then ask "Are you trying to eat less meat?" the response "No",
though logically correct, also feels wrong.
Oh, I always answer those truthfully but sometimes point out how stupid
That's assuming they _give_ you a freeform text box. The worst ones
don't.
Post by Penny
questions like that are. If you find yourself answering a survey question
with the answer you think they want, you're doing it wrong - and so are
they.
With Virgin Mobile, I've given up telling them, and just give the lowest
score available for the relevant questions.
Post by Penny
My least favourite question is 'what was your job before you retired' with
a long list to pick from. Nobody has paid me for working in a job since
1998 (unless you count the way-below-minimum-wage Carers Allowance), though
I continue to work. I have selected a variety of options over the past 6
years (since my state pension kicked in) but find it easier to answer 'not
working, not looking for work', which is not true but saves time.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.
Sam Plusnet
2020-07-19 20:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
My least favourite question is 'what was your job before you retired' with
a long list to pick from.
Thank you for reminding me of that.
I always hated those insurance (on-line) forms which insisted on you
selecting your occupation from their list. At no time did my actual
occupation ever appeared on one of those lists.

No doubt they could refuse to pay a claim, since I supplied incorrect
information
--
Sam Plusnet
Penny
2020-07-19 21:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 21:19:42 +0100, Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> scrawled in
the dust...
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Penny
My least favourite question is 'what was your job before you retired' with
a long list to pick from.
Thank you for reminding me of that.
I always hated those insurance (on-line) forms which insisted on you
selecting your occupation from their list. At no time did my actual
occupation ever appeared on one of those lists.
No doubt they could refuse to pay a claim, since I supplied incorrect
information
Ah, insurance forms.
On more than one occasion I was encouraged by insurance brokers to answer
that question with 'housewife' (as I was a widow at the time it seemed a
particularly silly label). I argued that, while my house was in need of a
wife, I would prefer to describe myself as a 'parent', so that's what they
put on the form.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Penny
2020-07-18 17:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:25:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Those who don't allow it, suffer from it because hair falls out and doesn't
replenish itself* anyway.
Aargh - an unmatched asterisk! I assume in this case either an
unintentional keystroke, or you just forgot the corresponding clause.
But in advertising copy, it's often used to link to weasel words - which
are increasingly omitted: IMO unmatched asterisks in advertising copy
ought to trigger an automatic large fine at the very least (-:.
Apologies, it was intended to link up with my ever-shedding,
ever-replenishing hair in some way.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Personally I suffer from hair loss because it falls out all the time and
winds itself around the brush on the vacuum cleaner, causing a nuisance to
me and sometimes damage to the machine. I still have too much hair.
I wish it didn't fall off - in my case I am not aware of it coming out
Mine used to break off here and there - split ends and the like - I blamed
the motorbike helmet but it was probably some dietary reason. I'm pretty
sure the stuff I shed now is from the root, I can feel a little lump on the
head end but haven't looked with a microscope.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2020-07-19 08:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 14:25:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Those who don't allow it, suffer from it because hair falls out and doesn't
replenish itself* anyway.
Aargh - an unmatched asterisk! I assume in this case either an
unintentional keystroke, or you just forgot the corresponding clause.
But in advertising copy, it's often used to link to weasel words - which
are increasingly omitted: IMO unmatched asterisks in advertising copy
ought to trigger an automatic large fine at the very least (-:.
Apologies, it was intended to link up with my ever-shedding,
ever-replenishing hair in some way.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Personally I suffer from hair loss because it falls out all the time and
winds itself around the brush on the vacuum cleaner, causing a nuisance to
me and sometimes damage to the machine. I still have too much hair.
I wish it didn't fall off - in my case I am not aware of it coming out
Mine used to break off here and there - split ends and the like - I blamed
the motorbike helmet but it was probably some dietary reason. I'm pretty
sure the stuff I shed now is from the root, I can feel a little lump on the
head end but haven't looked with a microscope.
Oh! Were you wearing jeans as well as the helmet? ‘Cos if you were they may
have been Levi Roots;-)
--
Toodle Pip
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-18 12:43:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Steve Hague
2020-07-18 13:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
Flop
2020-07-18 13:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.

Guess who the manufacturer is.
--
Flop

Truly the Good Lord gave us computers that we might learn patience
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-18 13:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign
in the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for
all the fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
Back in the days when shops seemed to have _permanent_ sales (still the
case in many, but I _think_ it's _slightly_ less prevalent now), it used
to strike me in Folkestone that all our French visitors must have been
surprised at the honesty of our shops: "sale" in French means dirty.
(Pronounced sal, as in Sally.)
Post by Flop
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
MRP, RSP (recommended sale price), and other such should IMO be banned -
unless it can be shown that the goods had actually been sold _in the
branch mentioned_, and with the same prominence, for a significant time
(such as 8 months).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Thay have a saying for it: /Geiz ist geil/, which roughly translates as, "It's
sexy to be stingly". - Joe Fattorini, RT insert 2016/9/10-16
Joe Kerr
2020-07-18 17:02:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Back in the days when shops seemed to have _permanent_ sales (still the
case in many, but I _think_ it's _slightly_ less prevalent now), it used
to strike me in Folkestone that all our French visitors must have been
surprised at the honesty of our shops: "sale" in French means dirty.
(Pronounced sal, as in Sally.)
My mother's response to the American term "On Sale" was "Of course it is
or it wouldn't be on display."
--
Ric
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-19 08:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
MRP, RSP (recommended sale price), and other such should IMO be banned -
unless it can be shown that the goods had actually been sold _in the
branch mentioned_, and with the same prominence, for a significant time
(such as 8 months).
I'm sure one of the big chains always used Brent Cross as their
reference point. I can only assume that it was a big enough shop
to have room for goods on display that they knew would not sell
at the displayed prices.

ISTR a consumer programme looking into such practices, and they
found that some of these reference items, whilst allegedly on
site and available for sale, were not actually on display.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-19 09:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
MRP, RSP (recommended sale price), and other such should IMO be banned -
unless it can be shown that the goods had actually been sold _in the
branch mentioned_, and with the same prominence, for a significant time
(such as 8 months).
I'm sure one of the big chains always used Brent Cross as their
reference point. I can only assume that it was a big enough shop
to have room for goods on display that they knew would not sell
at the displayed prices.
In the outlet that had the 11 people sign (which is called Mountain
Umbrella) I saw a little, lightweight anorak which was originally priced
at £99.99, reduced to umbrella and reduced again to £35. I did voice
the opinion that they probably knew it wouldn't sell for more than £35
(which seemed a not too unreasonable price (1)) but originally put the
silly prices on so people would think they were getting a bargain.

(1) It was similar to the one I bought a few months ago at the Tweedmill
for <£20 except that mine is reversible.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
Jim Easterbrook
2020-07-19 08:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
MRP, RSP (recommended sale price), and other such should IMO be banned -
unless it can be shown that the goods had actually been sold _in the
branch mentioned_, and with the same prominence, for a significant time
(such as 8 months).
What a monstrous imposition on hard working businesses... (cont'd p.94)
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Mike
2020-07-18 14:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
What does DFS stand for, discount furniture store?
--
Toodle Pip
Paul Herber
2020-07-18 15:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
What does DFS stand for, discount furniture store?
Danish Ferry Services
--
Regards, Paul Herber
https://www.paulherber.co.uk/
Nick Odell
2020-07-18 20:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
What I find a tad scarey is how little I can end up paying for the
wine in a bottle of wine - or as Jeremy Hardy famously called it,
wine-flavoured drink. I am clear that the discounted price is really
the real price and when you pay more for the same thing you are just
adding to the retailer profit but...

That nine pound bottle of wine I have just bought with 25% off and 25%
off when you buy 6 bottles or more will cost me a smidgeon over five
quid.

So, with wine duty at a fixed 2.23 and VAT on the final price, that
leaves about two quid to pay for the retailer profit, the wholesaler
profit and the wine manufacturer profit. My guess is that the real,
unmarked-up cost production of so-called medium-priced bottle of wine
is only about 50p. Does not bear thinking about: better drink some
more...

Nick
Tony Smith Gloucestershire
2020-07-18 20:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
What I find a tad scarey is how little I can end up paying for the
wine in a bottle of wine - or as Jeremy Hardy famously called it,
wine-flavoured drink. I am clear that the discounted price is really
the real price and when you pay more for the same thing you are just
adding to the retailer profit but...
That nine pound bottle of wine I have just bought with 25% off and 25%
off when you buy 6 bottles or more will cost me a smidgeon over five
quid.
So, with wine duty at a fixed 2.23 and VAT on the final price, that
leaves about two quid to pay for the retailer profit, the wholesaler
profit and the wine manufacturer profit. My guess is that the real,
unmarked-up cost production of so-called medium-priced bottle of wine
is only about 50p. Does not bear thinking about: better drink some
more...
Nick
In Spain, Portugal and Italy one sees in supermarkets litre "bricks" of wine at about €1. I wonder how much of that gets to the vintner.
Nick Odell
2020-07-19 01:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Tony Smith Gloucestershire
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Flop
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Chris J Dixon
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
AIUI, all they are actually promising is that none of their
reductions are greater than 50%. Anything else, including "no
change" is fine. That is why the words are so meaningless.
Chris
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Steve
The other sneaky one is 50% Off Manufacturers (Recommended) Price.
Usually furniture.
Guess who the manufacturer is.
What I find a tad scarey is how little I can end up paying for the
wine in a bottle of wine - or as Jeremy Hardy famously called it,
wine-flavoured drink. I am clear that the discounted price is really
the real price and when you pay more for the same thing you are just
adding to the retailer profit but...
That nine pound bottle of wine I have just bought with 25% off and 25%
off when you buy 6 bottles or more will cost me a smidgeon over five
quid.
So, with wine duty at a fixed 2.23 and VAT on the final price, that
leaves about two quid to pay for the retailer profit, the wholesaler
profit and the wine manufacturer profit. My guess is that the real,
unmarked-up cost production of so-called medium-priced bottle of wine
is only about 50p. Does not bear thinking about: better drink some
more...
Nick
In Spain, Portugal and Italy one sees in supermarkets litre "bricks" of wine at about €1. I wonder how much of that gets to the vintner.
If it is anything like the bricks of red or white wine we can buy over
here for the equivalent of about the same(1) then vintner seems a very
generous description of the big factory producing vinegar and
industrial alcohol that turns the stuff out. But here, and AFAICT
Spain, Portugal and Italy, there is no duty on wine, only VAT, so
improvement in the product might be possible for the price.


Nick
(1)Almost good enough for cooking with(2)
(2)But not quite.
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-18 13:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hague
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Talking of signs in shops, the other day I visited a local garden centre
(1) which is one of those vast places with different areas for Cotton
Traders, Bon Marché, etc. One of those shops had a notice saying that a
maximum of 11 people were allowed in the shop at any one time. The "11"
appeared to be hand-written on a square of paper which was pasted on to
the notice. I wondered what it had originally said, why they'd changed
it and how on earth they had arrived at the figure of 11.

(1) How exciting and daring was that?!
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
Chris McMillan
2020-07-18 16:34:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Steve Hague
There's a furniture shop just down the road from us which has a sign in
the window which says 'Sale! Up to 60% off!' It's been there for all the
fifteen years we've lived here.
Talking of signs in shops, the other day I visited a local garden centre
(1) which is one of those vast places with different areas for Cotton
Traders, Bon Marché, etc. One of those shops had a notice saying that a
maximum of 11 people were allowed in the shop at any one time. The "11"
appeared to be hand-written on a square of paper which was pasted on to
the notice. I wondered what it had originally said, why they'd changed
it and how on earth they had arrived at the figure of 11.
(1) How exciting and daring was that?!
Very daring indeed! LOL

We’ve just provided Wunderkind, Mr Wunderkind, and the two small
wunderkinds with a BBQ.

Sincerely Chris
Joe Kerr
2020-07-18 16:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Fewer than 81% of men suffer hair loss.
--
Ric
Peter
2020-07-20 22:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!

Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or... Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me. How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me? What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time. How can they possibly know? Time
hasn't ended yet.
Penny
2020-07-20 22:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:25:52 +0100, Peter <***@hotmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Peter
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or... Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me. How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me? What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
Ooo, paying by check written on the side of a cow springs to mind :))
Except that cheques are no longer returned after the transaction has been
completed - I think they are shredded of incinerated following being
recorded on whatever the modern equivalent of microfilm is - which would be
a sad and wasteful end for the cow.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-20 23:32:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Peter
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
I like "aggranoy"!
Post by Penny
Post by Peter
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or... Than what? I ask myself.
Agreed.
Post by Penny
Post by Peter
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me. How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me? What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
I've ranted before about the non-direct-debit surcharge - which is far
greater than the saving in admin. costs (especially for regular ones,
when compared to a standing order). I know _why_ it's there - I just
dislike the lack of honesty about the reason.
Post by Penny
Ooo, paying by check written on the side of a cow springs to mind :))
Except that cheques are no longer returned after the transaction has been
completed - I think they are shredded of incinerated following being
recorded on whatever the modern equivalent of microfilm is - which would be
a sad and wasteful end for the cow.
(-:

Another one that occurred to me a decade or few ago is "with", mainly
when applied to petfood. Think about it: if petfood is described as
"with" chicken, pork, tuna, or whatever, what it actually means is ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The motto of the Royal Society is: 'Take nobody's word for it'. Scepticism has
value. - Brian Cox, RT 2015/3/14-20
Mike
2020-07-21 07:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or... Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me. How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me? What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time. How can they possibly know? Time
hasn't ended yet.
Give them time...
--
Toodle Pip
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-21 07:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time. How can they possibly know? Time
hasn't ended yet.
"Have you lived here all your life?"

Not yet!

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
Mike
2020-07-21 07:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or... Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me. How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me? What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time. How can they possibly know? Time
hasn't ended yet.
And there is always the flash-wordings such as ‘Improved Formula’ and
‘Greater Taste’ or ‘Better than Ever Flavour’.
--
Toodle Pip
Joe Kerr
2020-07-21 12:04:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or...  Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me.  How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me?  What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
 And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time.  How can they possibly know?  Time
hasn't ended yet.
I thought that the latest scientific idea on the subject is that time
doesn't exist. It's just an illusion invented by brains to avoid getting
really[1] confused by everything happening at once.

[1] Really, really, really, and then some.
--
Ric
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-21 23:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[]
Post by Joe Kerr
Post by Peter
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time.  How can they possibly know?  Time
hasn't ended yet.
I thought that the latest scientific idea on the subject is that time
doesn't exist. It's just an illusion invented by brains to avoid
getting really[1] confused by everything happening at once.
[1] Really, really, really, and then some.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
"You should send that in to the Reader's Digest; they have a page for
people like you."
...
"I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hope you dream a pig.
Sam Plusnet
2020-07-21 19:54:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or...  Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using electronic
prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me.  How can a total stranger
know what is convenient for me?  What makes them think that I'm not
happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off people like them?
 And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time.  How can they possibly know?  Time
hasn't ended yet.
"In order to improve our service to our Customers we are introducing..."

- followed by a list of changes which benefit no-one but the company.
--
Sam Plusnet
Flop
2020-07-21 21:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off".
Are they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
Rant away old biscuit!
Among the things which aggrannoy me are
(i) Non-comparing comparisons - something is better, or faster, or
cheaper, or...  Than what? I ask myself.
(ii) Being told that something (paying by direct debit, using
electronic prescriptions, ...) is more convenient for me.  How can a
total stranger know what is convenient for me?  What makes them think
that I'm not happy to be inconvenienced if in return I can piss off
people like them?   And that "more" is another non-comparing comparison.
(iii) Being told that someone or something is the greatest
something-or-other of all time.  How can they possibly know?  Time
hasn't ended yet.
"In order to improve our service to our Customers we are introducing..."
- followed by a list of changes which benefit no-one but the company.
One annoying feature is removing facilities in the name of 'improvement'

Example 1 - Micro$oft - disabled DVD players to 'rationalise media
playback'.

Example 2 - Foxit: "Foxit Reader PDF Printer has been removed in V10
already since all of features for creating PDF files in Foxit Reader
have all disabled in Foxit Reader V10."
--
Flop

Truly the Good Lord gave us computers that we might learn patience
Sam Plusnet
2020-07-22 21:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Flop
Example 2 - Foxit: "Foxit Reader PDF Printer has been removed in V10
already since all of features for creating PDF files in Foxit Reader
have all disabled in Foxit Reader V10."
No doubt those 'features' are available in the paid-for version.
--
Sam Plusnet
Steve Hague
2020-07-23 11:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
What about "Scientists say......"
Steve
Penny
2020-07-23 15:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:02:18 +0100, Steve Hague <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Steve Hague
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Mike
2020-07-23 15:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Steve Hague
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
--
Toodle Pip
Mike
2020-07-23 15:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Steve Hague
Post by DavidK
I can just about make sense of a shop advertising "up to 50% off". Are
they obliged to have at least one item satisfying that reduction?
I have just seen an advertisement that said "up to 80% of men suffer
hair loss". What does that even mean?
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
--
Toodle Pip
Jenny M Benson
2020-07-23 15:23:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Post by Steve Hague
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
I heard "recognized by (1)..." the other day and thought that was nicely
meaningless.

(1) Some "body" with a scientific-sounding name.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-23 15:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Post by Steve Hague
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
I heard "recognized by (1)..." the other day and thought that was
nicely meaningless.
(1) Some "body" with a scientific-sounding name.
(Not "the British Skin Foundation" by any chance?)

or "voted the top ..." (often some very limited field, and voted by
whom?)

Then there's misleading words in company names - I'd try to get some MP
to try a private members' bill, if I thought there was any chance. Words
like agency, board, council, body, bureau, and so on - anything designed
to sound "official", to mislead. Or logos.

(Did anyone here think the "Design Council" had any authority, for
example? It's just a company.)

We'd maybe have to allow clearly frivolous use: I don't think I want to
come down on the Style Council (a popular music group, m'lud).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham
Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)
Penny
2020-07-23 17:36:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:48:43 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Then there's misleading words in company names - I'd try to get some MP
to try a private members' bill, if I thought there was any chance. Words
like agency, board, council, body, bureau, and so on - anything designed
to sound "official", to mislead. Or logos.
(Did anyone here think the "Design Council" had any authority, for
example? It's just a company.)
Then there's National Grid (plc) which I thought was the last remaining
'nationalised' bit of the energy industry.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2020-07-23 18:12:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:48:43 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Then there's misleading words in company names - I'd try to get some MP
to try a private members' bill, if I thought there was any chance. Words
like agency, board, council, body, bureau, and so on - anything designed
to sound "official", to mislead. Or logos.
(Did anyone here think the "Design Council" had any authority, for
example? It's just a company.)
Then there's National Grid (plc) which I thought was the last remaining
'nationalised' bit of the energy industry.
(Frayed knot; I have a few shares in them. [Don't remember buying them -
I think I got them when something else changed.])

Yes, "National" is another one of those keywords. I'd say
English/Scottish/etc. ought to be at least _controlled_, too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4
Chris J Dixon
2020-07-24 07:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Penny
Then there's National Grid (plc) which I thought was the last remaining
'nationalised' bit of the energy industry.
(Frayed knot; I have a few shares in them. [Don't remember buying them -
I think I got them when something else changed.])
Tell Sid?



Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.
krw
2020-07-24 17:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Did anyone here think the "Design Council" had any authority, for
example? It's just a company.)
I thought they were a pop band m'lud. No idea about the second album.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike
2020-07-24 17:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(Did anyone here think the "Design Council" had any authority, for
example? It's just a company.)
I thought they were a pop band m'lud. No idea about the second album.
It was rubbish (of course).;-)
--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2020-07-23 17:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:23:30 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Post by Steve Hague
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
I heard "recognized by (1)..." the other day and thought that was nicely
meaningless.
(1) Some "body" with a scientific-sounding name.
"recognized ... as a heap of carp ... by ..."
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Jim Easterbrook
2020-07-23 17:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Penny
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:23:30 +0100, Jenny M Benson
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Post by Steve Hague
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
I heard "recognized by (1)..." the other day and thought that was nicely
meaningless.
(1) Some "body" with a scientific-sounding name.
"recognized ... as a heap of carp ... by ..."
Spoiler alert. Or not. We don't know who, yet.

.


.


.


.


.


.


.


"Tim Oaten waste disposal - recognised by Ed Grundy".
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Penny
2020-07-24 09:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23 Jul 2020 17:33:14 GMT, Jim Easterbrook <***@jim-easterbrook.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jim Easterbrook
Post by Penny
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 16:23:30 +0100, Jenny M Benson
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Penny
Post by Steve Hague
What about "Scientists say......"
... whatever you want, if you tickle them.
‘Tickle’ them with ...... Money?
Then there’s the variation on this - ‘Scientifically Proven’.
I heard "recognized by (1)..." the other day and thought that was nicely
meaningless.
(1) Some "body" with a scientific-sounding name.
"recognized ... as a heap of carp ... by ..."
Spoiler alert. Or not. We don't know who, yet.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Tim Oaten waste disposal - recognised by Ed Grundy".
:)
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Loading...