People you shouldn't trust

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:21 pm

People who start Facebook updates with "That moment when..."

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:45 pm

People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Johnny Canuck » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:47 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:55 pm

Johnny Canuck wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.
Unlucky. OK, I'll allow that such people are to be trusted if they write in just to see if they can get their question read out on television, as long as they do not do so in as a genuine pursuit of information (unless as just a secondary means) - i.e. they still just Google it themselves anyway.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark James » Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:37 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:People who write to Susie Dent to ask about the origin of some word or saying, when they could just Google it. (If these people really exist and aren't made up by the show.)
Frak. Apparently, I am officially Not To Be Trusted.
Unlucky. OK, I'll allow that such people are to be trusted if they write in just to see if they can get their question read out on television, as long as they do not do so in as a genuine pursuit of information (unless as just a secondary means) - i.e. they still just Google it themselves anyway.
People who arbitrarily change the rules and add caveats just so they don't offend people they want to appear nice to.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:29 am

People who point out the above inconsistently :D
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:15 pm

People who say "passed away" instead of "died". Just say it.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:19 pm

Harsh.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:21 pm

I mean, what's the purpose of changing it? When people pass away, they die. Do we not just substitute "passed away" for "died" when we hear it? I think so, in which case, why do the first substitution? Just say it. Don't be afraid of death. It's the most normal thing going.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Matt Morrison » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:47 pm

There are countless equivalent examples too, and it all depends on circumstance and knowing your audience. Essentially I get what you're saying but I disagree that it's never appropriate to pussyfoot around certain things. But then I am a big girl's blouse.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:40 am

We as humans are burdened by the awareness of our own mortality, unlike, say, worms. The best we can do is deal with it. I get the need to pussyfoot, but I just don't know why this does it.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:20 am

I'm guessing that you haven't lost anyone close recently.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:21 am

No I don't mean your next door neighbour
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3200
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:25 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:I'm guessing that you haven't lost anyone close recently.
Why would that make a difference? A family member of mine died quite recently, and I still felt no need to descent into euphemism to soften the fact that he karked it at an undue age. Does using phrases like 'passed away', or the laughable 'fell asleep' make anyone feel better about things?

I worry about the poor bastards who got buried because they simply fell asleep.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:22 pm

I am one of the dying breed of people with a little decorum when dealing with delicate matters like bereavement.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3200
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:27 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:I am one of the dying breed of people with a little decorum when dealing with delicate matters like bereavement.
Don't you mean 'passing away breed'?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:39 pm

Journalists/newsreaders who use jargonistic phrases on the general public without stopping to think that people might not know what the fuck they're on about. For example:

Self-immolation
Diplomatic Cables
Deficit (no-one actually knew what this meant when the term first came into common usage in about 2008)
Abolishing the 10p tax rate

There's loads more. That's just what sprung to mind.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:40 pm

No one close to me has died or passed away recently, no. But I don't think that changes my opinion any. Death sucks, but I don't know if changing its name helps with that.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
Matt Morrison
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7140
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Matt Morrison » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:41 pm

You and Ian are both saying "don't use 'passed away' with me, say what you mean" which is totally and utterly fine. But I bet you both know _other_ people who wouldn't appreciate the kind of bluntness you're advocating, and not trusting people purely based on their attempts to make something a little less harsh seems weird; even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3200
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:16 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:You and Ian are both saying "don't use 'passed away' with me, say what you mean" which is totally and utterly fine. But I bet you both know _other_ people who wouldn't appreciate the kind of bluntness you're advocating, and not trusting people purely based on their attempts to make something a little less harsh seems weird; even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
I understand it, I didn't lump in on the non-trust side of things though. If I was talking to someone who was upset about a death, I'd be gentle and understanding as appropriate, but I'd be surprised if I ended up using a euphemism. I'd probably just talk about something else if they were that sensitive.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Adam Gillard » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:45 pm

People who get on an escalator on the right (standing) side and then change their mind part-way up and cut in front of someone to use the left (walking) side.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Thomas Carey
Devotee
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Thomas Carey » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:52 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:People who get on an escalator on the right (standing) side and then change their mind part-way up and cut in front of someone to use the left (walking) side.
People who don't use the standing/walking side system.
signature

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:52 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
When I started this thread, the whole trust thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was supposed to be more of a humorous thing. Just "people who do wrong stuff" really.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:12 am

Matt Morrison wrote:You and Ian are both saying "don't use 'passed away' with me, say what you mean" which is totally and utterly fine. But I bet you both know _other_ people who wouldn't appreciate the kind of bluntness you're advocating, and not trusting people purely based on their attempts to make something a little less harsh seems weird; even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
People who use enclosing punctuation marks or all capitals for emphasis in online contexts where bold, italic and underline are available.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:21 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:even if you disagree with them doing it, I can't see how their reasons to do so are untrustworthy.
When I started this thread, the whole trust thing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was supposed to be more of a humorous thing. Just "people who do wrong stuff" really.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I was with it too. It's not as though if someone said "passed away" I would refuse to entrust my dog with them. I think it's a bit odd and unnecessary and speaks to a fear of death that is probably unhealthy, but I wouldn't actively distrust them.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

David Williams
Devotee
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by David Williams » Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:52 am

At least "passed away" means "died", and everyone understands it. There was an item on the Liverpool FC website a couple of years ago, the day after Yaya Toure had had a dreadful game in the World Cup, expressing their sympathies to Kolo Toure on the passing of his brother. Turned out it was another brother, who had died.

The one that aggravates me is the universal way that the media will report "Tributes were being paid to X, who died today" which implies that the news story is the tributes. Do they think it somehow softens the blow, when the actual news is "X died today". Particularly when it's your local paper, and the tributes amount to his mother saying he was lovely, and his headmaster who clearly can't exactly remember which one he was.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark James » Mon May 02, 2016 11:12 am

People who share stuff from the "Humans of New York" facebook page. What the hell is that all about?

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue May 03, 2016 12:42 pm

Men who think that football is a bit shit
People who hate dogs
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Adam Gillard » Wed May 04, 2016 12:00 am

Men
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed May 04, 2016 7:57 am

Sexists.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri May 06, 2016 2:07 pm

People who say to me when I swear something along the lines of "I don't think I've ever heard you swear before. You don't seem like the sort of person who would swear." You'd be surprised how many people have actually said this to me over my life. I find it a really odd thing to even go through someone's mind. Cunts.

User avatar
Mark Deeks
Kiloposter
Posts: 1586
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Mark Deeks » Fri May 06, 2016 2:14 pm

I get that sometimes except with "that was quite quick witted, for you". I don't think it's anything personal or thought through. I think people just say things sometimes.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by JimBentley » Fri May 06, 2016 3:56 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:People who say to me when I swear something along the lines of "I don't think I've ever heard you swear before. You don't seem like the sort of person who would swear." You'd be surprised how many people have actually said this to me over my life. I find it a really odd thing to even go through someone's mind. Cunts.
My theory is that it means that you - in normal conversation - swear appropriately, i.e. only when the situation demands it to, for instance, reinforce a point. This distinguishes you from people who swear every other word. But then excessive and unnecessary use of swearing can be funny too.

I of course have mastered both techniques (but employ them in an entirely inappropriate manner).

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu May 19, 2016 9:44 pm

People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Johnny Canuck » Thu May 19, 2016 10:57 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Conor
Series 54 Champion
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Luton - UK

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Conor » Thu May 19, 2016 11:23 pm

Johnny Canuck wrote:Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.
It annoys pedants, which is always a legitimate use.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:31 pm

People who pronounce "Asia" with a "sh" sound rather than a "zh" sound.

sean d
Acolyte
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by sean d » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:39 am

Johnny Canuck wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.
You're both literally wrong. Literally has (or should have*) a very specific function of distinguishing a statement from figurative, hyperbolic, ironic or metaphorical statements. Just because it is widely misused doesn't mean it should be ok to widely misuse it.

*I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:56 am

sean d wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:People who think the word "literally" is off limits when you're exaggerating. As if saying "I literally died laughing" is any more inaccurate than saying "I died laughing".
Agreed. In my opinion, "literally" has a legitimate figurative use.
You're both literally wrong. Literally has (or should have*) a very specific function of distinguishing a statement from figurative, hyperbolic, ironic or metaphorical statements. Just because it is widely misused doesn't mean it should be ok to widely misuse it.

*I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
The word "literally" doesn't have to be used literally any more than the word "hoarsely" has to be used "hoarsely". It's an error of levels or something to say otherwise. When you use the word "literally", it applies to what you are saying after the word "literally", not the word itself. And the word "literally" is just a word like any other in the English language, which can be used for exaggeration or figuratively.

But if I was writing the dictionary, I might not bother with the informal sense. The point is that there is literally nothing special about the word. It can be used figuratively, but so can any other word. There example here is "I have received literally thousands of letters", but you could also say "I have received thousands of letters", in which case you'd be using the word "thousands" figuratively", but I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the dictionary entry for "thousands".

sean d
Acolyte
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by sean d » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:05 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: When you use the word "literally", it applies to what you are saying after the word "literally", not the word itself.
Agreed. And it defines what follows as being in a literal, actual, non-figurative sense.

Certainly you can state "I have received thousands of letters" and everyone would understand that you mean you have received loads of letters. But if you say you have "literally received thousands of letters" that should means you have received at least 2,000 letters. The whole point of the word literally is to denote the fact the fact that you have in a literal sense received thousands of letters.... you're saying "I'm not speaking figuratively here, I have actually received multiples of a thousand letters"

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Johnny Canuck » Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:55 pm

In my opinion, the debate over whether or not "literally" can be used in an informal sense has been inconceivably overblown.
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Heather Styles

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Heather Styles » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:50 pm

This is quite interesting (I literally don't understand all of it, but there are some beautiful sentences): http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-y ... sused-word

Tim Down
Rookie
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:45 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Tim Down » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:36 pm

sean d wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.
Last edited by Tim Down on Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Johnny Canuck
Devotee
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Johnny Canuck » Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:46 pm

Tim Down wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.
Especially so if a word is defined by the word itself preceded by "not"!
Otherwise known as "Will", "JC", or "that guy who's bad at The Mole".

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jun 22, 2016 5:06 pm

Tim Down wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:I see the OED has bowed to the stupidity of the general public by including a non-literal definition of literally....
1.1 (informal) Used for emphasis while not being literally true
Nice circular definition there. I'd say defining a word by using the word itself is a bad idea.
I think that quote has literally been attributed to the wrong person.

Tim Down
Rookie
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:45 am

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Tim Down » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:40 pm

Femidom Chunderthrust wrote: I think that quote has literally been attributed to the wrong person.
Oops. Sorry. Fixed now.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:44 pm

People who think that a scale from 1 to 10 is the same as a score out of 10. In fact, people who ask you to rate something on a scale from 1 to 10. Why 1 to 10? Why not 15 to 71? 0 has to got to be the zero point!

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by JimBentley » Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:44 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:Why 1 to 10?
But it's not always 1 to 10, is it? Sometimes 0 is an option, so 0 to 10 (or eleven ranks). Depends on how the question is termed. I think you sometimes assume that people are less rigorous than you, when the case may be that they are in fact more rigorous.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:52 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:Why 1 to 10?
But it's not always 1 to 10, is it? Sometimes 0 is an option, so 0 to 10 (or eleven ranks). Depends on how the question is termed. I think you sometimes assume that people are less rigorous than you, when the case may be that they are in fact more rigorous.
Sometimes it is an option, and the people who give you a 0 to 10 scale can be trusted. But 1 to 10 is very common.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3200
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Ian Volante » Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:56 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:44 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.
I just think it's odd to have a scale from 1 to 10. It's confusing for one thing. People might give a score of 5 thinking it's the middle, when actually it's equivalent to 4 out of 9. 5.5 would actually be the middle score. I'd be surprised if many people actually properly took into account this asymmetry when giving their score. It's also the same as saying "Add one to your score out of 9". Absolutely stone-cold mental, I genuinely can't see any other description that applies.

If it's 0 to 10 then it's the same as 0 to 100 but with everything divided by 10. But comparing a 1 to 10 scale with a 1 to 100 scale doesn't work as nicely.

On The Last Leg, Jeremy Corbyn was asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how much "in" he was with the EU. This was later misreported on the news as his score out of 10 rather than his score out of 9, plus 1.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by JimBentley » Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:15 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:0 has to got to be the zero point!
Why? One is the first number of the counting, and is somewhat more venerable than its upstart neighbour zero.
I just think it's odd to have a scale from 1 to 10. It's confusing for one thing. People might give a score of thinking it's the middle, when actually it's equivalent to 4 out of 9. 5.5 would actually be the middle score. I'd be surprised if many people actually properly took into account this asymmetry when giving their score. It's also the same as saying "Add one to your score out of 9". Absolutely stone-cold mental, I genuinely can't see any other description that applies.
On a sort of related (not really) aside, all our A-Level mock examinations had a maximum score of 100, i.e. if you answered everything correctly you would score 100. All of them except in Maths that is, for some reason the mock exams always had a maximum of 114, or 109, or 112, or some other seemingly-random figure between 100 and 120. Can anyone confirm if they can recall such a weird system? Maybe it still goes on, who knows.

User avatar
Thomas Carey
Devotee
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 pm
Location: North-West of Bradford
Contact:

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Thomas Carey » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:44 am

Jim Bentley wrote: On a sort of related (not really) aside, all our A-Level mock examinations had a maximum score of 100, i.e. if you answered everything correctly you would score 100. All of them except in Maths that is, for some reason the mock exams always had a maximum of 114, or 109, or 112, or some other seemingly-random figure between 100 and 120. Can anyone confirm if they can recall such a weird system? Maybe it still goes on, who knows.
They pretty much all (except some weird tiny exam boards) use 75 now.
signature

Peter Mabey
Devotee
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Peter Mabey » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:18 pm

In our maths exam, each question was worth a number of marks for a correct answer, and the individual totals were scaled to make the best 100. On one occasion, after this had been done, it was found that I'd not been credited for an answer, so rather than change everybody's by rescaling, the master decided to keep the factor he'd used, so I ended with 102% :D

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7518
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:28 pm

People who ever use the word "gifted" to describe anyone.

User avatar
Euan Slatter
Acolyte
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:06 pm
Location: Portishead, NORTH SOMERSET

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Euan Slatter » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:26 am

Sharon Osbourne on X Factor.
COUNTDOWN or THE TUBE? Which is better? There's only one way to find out....

Call it a draw :)

Robins Till I Die

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:43 pm

People who post the exact same thing as the previous poster thus creating the impression of a great coincidence or the impression the poster is a dickwad
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:44 pm

People who post the exact same thing as the previous poster thus creating the impression of a great coincidence or the impression the poster is a dickwad
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:45 pm

:D Oops, I rest my case
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Euan Slatter
Acolyte
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:06 pm
Location: Portishead, NORTH SOMERSET

Re: People you shouldn't trust

Post by Euan Slatter » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:49 pm

Marc Meakin wrote::D Oops, I rest my case
That just proved you were correct, that second post :D
COUNTDOWN or THE TUBE? Which is better? There's only one way to find out....

Call it a draw :)

Robins Till I Die

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest