Things that annoy you beyond reason...? [Vol 3]
Discussion
Bluedot said:
I'll happily pick up an offer even if it's something that I haven't gone on for. I mean, if you can get 2 packs of dishwasher tablets for the price of one or something like that on items you know you will need at some point then I don't see why you wouldn't use it to your advantage.
That’s a little different than perishable items, as you would get round to using them eventually. But I would still buy the same product I always use. Take toothpaste I always use the same one, if I go to the shelf and it is on offer I might buy a couple of them but I wouldn’t buy a different toothpaste because that one had a deal/offer.popeyewhite said:
Why do you pause to look at something you weren't hitherto interested in? If I'm buying a sandwich I go straight to the relevant shelving. If they've moved the cabinets around (which they only do once very 5 years!) I go hunting for the one I want, without letting my eyes dawdle on cut-price aftershave. Supermarkets employ all kinds of obvious tricks to sell complete guff and use techniques that can only loosely be described as 'psychology'; from using eye tracking soft/hardware to idiotically selling they're own lower quality products in the same packaging as other brand's, it's tricks, nothing else.
Because if it's something you may well need and buy in the future, toothpaste, dishwasher tablets, shaving gel etc etc and you see there is a decent offer on for it then I don't understand why you would blatantly ignore it ?Cotty said:
That’s a little different than perishable items, as you would get round to using them eventually. But I would still buy the same product I always use. Take toothpaste I always use the same one, if I go to the shelf and it is on offer I might buy a couple of them but I wouldn’t buy a different toothpaste because that one had a deal/offer.
Apologies yes, perishable items. And agreed yes, we pretty much always use the same dishwasher tabs, toothpaste etc and if you see it's on offer then we'd buy it knowing it's saving you a bit of money in the long run.hidetheelephants said:
rohrl said:
Also included in the list of things which annoy me this evening are people so incredibly, indescribably stupid that they think that I would post gifs of animal abuse on PH.
WTF; was that the cat in the spring gif that appears to have been moderated? How is that more disturbing than David Hasselhoff in his pants?popeyewhite said:
Why do you pause to look at something you weren't hitherto interested in?
Because, amazingly, not everyone is exactly the same as you, or thinks exactly he same as you or acts exactly the same as you. I honestly thing that this entire thread could be boiled down to "people who are not exactly the same as me annoy me beyond reason".
Bluedot said:
Because if it's something you may well need and buy in the future, toothpaste, dishwasher tablets, shaving gel etc etc and you see there is a decent offer on for it then I don't understand why you would blatantly ignore it ?
I don't ignore it. I don't see it because I have specific items on a shopping list and little time in my lunch hour to dawdle in Sainsbury's. Also I'm a bloke.Europa1 said:
essayer said:
f
king TROLLEY BAGS at tube stations
So one person can take up the space of three.
Should require a driving licence. fk OFF
It's not just the space. It's the sudden dead stop the moment they step off the escalator to pull the towing handle back up that boils my piss.king TROLLEY BAGS at tube stationsSo one person can take up the space of three.
Should require a driving licence. f
k OFFI actually felt sorry for her. Unfortunately I was running for my train so I couldn't help her (and everyone else).
The Don of Croy said:
Actor / actress.
When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
But conversely, why is the gender of the person doing the acting important? We don't have doctor and doctress, or lawyer and lawyeress. So why actor and actress? (other than the fact that we have always done)When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
JonRB said:
The Don of Croy said:
Actor / actress.
When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
But conversely, why is the gender of the person doing the acting important? We don't have doctor and doctress, or lawyer and lawyeress. So why actor and actress? (other than the fact that we have always done)When did 'it' get decided there was to be only one term 'actor' to cover both genders?
A Dr is judged on their ability at practising medicine in their chosen field, and their sex does not affect that ability. An actor is judged on their ability to play a role and a bloke playing Mrs Poppins simply would not work. Roles are in most cases male or female.
Actor/Actress
Gynaecologist/Pediatrician
Hugo a Gogo said:
how about an actor/actress playing the role of a Doctor?
If they only appear in a medical capacity they could be either. Hence "most" roles. However "most" roles of any importance the character is in a relationship of one form or another. Working Girl really wouldn't work as a film with an actor in the leading role (relationship with society in that case not just personal relationship).Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff