Old Guy Moans ...

The word 'love' is used out of context on singing/dancing/cooking/anyfuckingother TV show these days

"What I love about XXXXX's foxtrot/pavlova/voice/ceramic dish . . . . .

It drives me around the fucking twist


Beginning sentences with the word 'so'
"So fucking what?" was my response to one of my recent graduate trainees . . . He left his job the next day . . . . .


Misuse of the word 'actually- it's used as a filler word to make the speaker sound as though the know what the fuck they're on about.
 
Boab said:
Also, using 'of' instead of 'have' seems to be very common these days.
Click to expand...
I think that stems from a misunderstanding of the shortened form of expressions such as ‘should’ve’. People understand the meaning when hearing it - but then ‘mis-write’ it - to use another modern euphemism. If you ‘misspeak’ your are either telling lies or talking through your fundament.
 
"those preposterous two-wheeled things". Yes, and adults on scooters. Young kids look cool on these. Grown men, not so much. Ridiculous, in fact.
 
Unbelievable; what a shame.
 
On a slight tangent - the thing that is really irritating me now is the ever increasing number of TV adverts from car manufacturers that show smug hipsters grinning as they drive their electric cars to the beach party and the advert then ends with a shot of the smug one plugging the car into a charging station with the smug tagline "WE ARE REDUCING OUR CARBON EMISSIONS TO ZERO" or similar.

Oh really? So what carbon-free process is producing the electricity for all these electric cars? Got a million square miles of wind farms tucked away somewhere?

Nope - it will be a good ole oil / gas / coal fired power station that will be working at 100%

Grrrrrr
 
It annoys me too.
Cars.... made from steel.....made from iron and......carbon. Production of 1 tonne of steel emits close to 2 tonnes of CO2. where's their smugness now?
 
merchant_seaman said:
33 HOMOCIDES in London this year. It’s a murder ffs.
Click to expand...
There might well be a reason why it is stated that way - clumsy as it is - not all will end up - after the court process - as murders - some will be manslaughter - culpable homicide in Scotland - unlawful killing - or the accused is found not guilty on the basis of diminished responsibility - mental health issues. I have over two decades of experience in the reporting of crime and if you label either of the last two types of killers as murderers - you will be sued to fuck - you can legally refer to the killer of such and such - but not call them a murderer. The BBC can't pre-empt the outcome of the court cases involved in the figure quoted. Cheers - I.
 
Last edited:

Thanks for that Ian, I never considered that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register