ParkRoyal2100:
BTW don’t shout at the telly; they can’t hear you.
How do you know? Whhooo.
The tellie’s a bit thinner now, so less room for them, doesn’t mean they aren’t still there you know. I can hear them.
You need to get up to date with modern equipment. These smart devices that you talk to do actually have the ability to capture what you say. I remember listening to a radio programme a few years ago and the contributors were discussing how even something as basic as a “smart kettle” could eavesdrop on you.
Rather than be irritated at this “Big Brother” intrusion I thought it was more bizarre that anyone would want a kettle you talk to.
ParkRoyal2100:
BTW don’t shout at the telly; they can’t hear you.
How do you know? Whhooo.
The tellie’s a bit thinner now, so less room for them, doesn’t mean they aren’t still there you know. I can hear them.
You need to get up to date with modern equipment. These smart devices that you talk to do actually have the ability to capture what you say. I remember listening to a radio programme a few years ago and the contributors were discussing how even something as basic as a “smart kettle” could eavesdrop on you.
Rather than be irritated at this “Big Brother” intrusion I thought it was more bizarre that anyone would want a kettle you talk to.
Bloody hell, you’ll be telling me next that people can actually read what I bang out on this keyboard.
Funny about the kettle though, the helper that comes in for my wife washed it one day. 10 hours later it blew the fuses. Reckon you’ve got a point, it must have been upset about it.
Spardo:
No disagreement from me Franglais, though Robert I must admit to not being a frequent user of the semi-colon, but not because I believe it to be incorrect, I don’t.
Who would have thought that a group of thicko lorry drivers would be discussing semantics?
But that is the upside, the downside is those like me who are pedants. Being effectively alone in the house most of the time I am a frequent shouter at the tv when some numpty commits the ultimate sin and confuses a double negative. The only relief is when the younger woman who comes in regularly to look after my wife’s needs (no, I don’t mean that ) and we have some vigorous discussions of this nature.
Like your good self, I something of a pedant when it comes to what we used to call “the Queen’s English” (Mum was a bit of a stickler, she even had a “telephone voice” which amused me and my brother no end). Notwithstanding, I’m all for people speaking in their local dialect, many of which are disappearing rapidly. I’d often pitch up at a yard in (say) Cheadle or Bradford or Huddersfield chasing a backload and - after too long - someone would come out and say “Ent got nowt for yer drive”. That’s the local dialect, double-negatives and all, and it’s fine by me. BTW don’t shout at the telly; they can’t hear you.
I do get a bit irritated when split infinitives are “corrected”.
The splitting of infinitives is “prohibited” in some languages, (notably Latin so I understand?) bit isnt really wrong in English. English is a living language, and what isnt ambiguous is acceptable, surely?
I believe this alleged rule is from the erroneous application of a rule from another language. We don`t use the rule of double negative in French do we? Non, ne pas, rien de tout.
It is possibly pedantic to “correct” others error if it isnt misleading, but to wrongly “correct” a non-fault is annoying at the least.
Spardo:
No disagreement from me Franglais, though Robert I must admit to not being a frequent user of the semi-colon, but not because I believe it to be incorrect, I don’t.
Who would have thought that a group of thicko lorry drivers would be discussing semantics?
But that is the upside, the downside is those like me who are pedants. Being effectively alone in the house most of the time I am a frequent shouter at the tv when some numpty commits the ultimate sin and confuses a double negative. The only relief is when the younger woman who comes in regularly to look after my wife’s needs (no, I don’t mean that ) and we have some vigorous discussions of this nature.
Like your good self, I something of a pedant when it comes to what we used to call “the Queen’s English” (Mum was a bit of a stickler, she even had a “telephone voice” which amused me and my brother no end). Notwithstanding, I’m all for people speaking in their local dialect, many of which are disappearing rapidly. I’d often pitch up at a yard in (say) Cheadle or Bradford or Huddersfield chasing a backload and - after too long - someone would come out and say “Ent got nowt for yer drive”. That’s the local dialect, double-negatives and all, and it’s fine by me. BTW don’t shout at the telly; they can’t hear you.
I do get a bit irritated when split infinitives are “corrected”.
The splitting of infinitives is “prohibited” in some languages, (notably Latin so I understand?) bit isnt really wrong in English. English is a living language, and what isnt ambiguous is acceptable, surely?
I believe this alleged rule is from the erroneous application of a rule from another language. We don`t use the rule of double negative in French do we? Non, ne pas, rien de tout.
It is possibly pedantic to “correct” others error if it isnt misleading, but to wrongly “correct” a non-fault is annoying at the least.
If a split infinitive was good enough for Bill and the King James version of the Bible, who to object am I. I can be a pedant but I restrict my habit these days to bi7ching to those who release reams of “managerialese” and Corporatese" with every announcement: that guff makes me want stab someone with a spork. Dropping hints about the (seemingly ineradicable) errors around it’s/ its, there/ their/ they’re, your/ you’re is mostly a waste of time and bandwidth, given that all yer mainstream media outlets frequently use the incorrect one on the regular.
Spardo:
No disagreement from me Franglais, though Robert I must admit to not being a frequent user of the semi-colon, but not because I believe it to be incorrect, I don’t.
Who would have thought that a group of thicko lorry drivers would be discussing semantics?
But that is the upside, the downside is those like me who are pedants. Being effectively alone in the house most of the time I am a frequent shouter at the tv when some numpty commits the ultimate sin and confuses a double negative. The only relief is when the younger woman who comes in regularly to look after my wife’s needs (no, I don’t mean that ) and we have some vigorous discussions of this nature.
Like your good self, I something of a pedant when it comes to what we used to call “the Queen’s English” (Mum was a bit of a stickler, she even had a “telephone voice” which amused me and my brother no end). Notwithstanding, I’m all for people speaking in their local dialect, many of which are disappearing rapidly. I’d often pitch up at a yard in (say) Cheadle or Bradford or Huddersfield chasing a backload and - after too long - someone would come out and say “Ent got nowt for yer drive”. That’s the local dialect, double-negatives and all, and it’s fine by me. BTW don’t shout at the telly; they can’t hear you.
I do get a bit irritated when split infinitives are “corrected”.
The splitting of infinitives is “prohibited” in some languages, (notably Latin so I understand?) bit isnt really wrong in English. English is a living language, and what isnt ambiguous is acceptable, surely?
I believe this alleged rule is from the erroneous application of a rule from another language. We don`t use the rule of double negative in French do we? Non, ne pas, rien de tout.
It is possibly pedantic to “correct” others error if it isnt misleading, but to wrongly “correct” a non-fault is annoying at the least.
If a split infinitive was good enough for Bill and the King James version of the Bible, who to object am I. I can be a pedant but I restrict my habit these days to bi7ching to those who release reams of “managerialese” and Corporatese" with every announcement: that guff makes me want stab someone with a spork. Dropping hints about the (seemingly ineradicable) errors around it’s/ its, there/ their/ they’re, your/ you’re is mostly a waste of time and bandwidth, given that all yer mainstream media outlets frequently use the incorrect one on the regular.
My present dislikes are “at speed”, and “going forward” instead of “quickly” and “later”/“in the future”.
The first time theyre heard, its attention catching, but after repeated use, it`s just more buzz-word nonsense.
I treat speakers using such was a lecturer who described some of his students thus:
If they wear a baseball cap, I automatically deduct 10% from their mark.
If they don`t even know which is the front of the cap, they get a 20% deduction!
But saying all that, so long as it isnt ambiguous? No problem really, lifes short enough already.
My present dislikes are “at speed”, and “going forward” instead of “quickly” and “later”/“in the future”.
The first time theyre heard, its attention catching, but after repeated use, it`s just more buzz-word nonsense.
I treat speakers using such was a lecturer who described some of his students thus:
If they wear a baseball cap, I automatically deduct 10% from their mark.
If they don`t even know which is the front of the cap, they get a 20% deduction!
But saying all that, so long as it isnt ambiguous? No problem really, lifes short enough already.
[/quote]
I love the baseball cap quote!
My own pet hate is starting spoken sentence with “So” and then proceeding to lace said sentence with ''like".
Every time I see videos or photos of those gawky things UPS and FedEx drive in the States, I’m reminded of the Commer Walk-Thru. I daresay Rootes copied the design from the US.
Eddie Heaton:
Any idea what’s on the trailer David ? Couldn’t have anything to do with re-surfacing , or otherwise repairing the road by any chance do you suppose ?
Probably not . Just a wild guess on my part .
No real idea Eddie, but it certainly looks as if stuff goes in at the top and comes out at the bottom. Some kind of rock crusher maybe?
Better guess than mine David , but whatever it is , it would appear to be integral with the trailer ;
Can you make out the department number on the 404 ?
Eddie Heaton:
Better guess than mine David , but whatever it is , it would appear to be integral with the trailer ;
Can you make out the department number on the 404 ?
06 I think. Alpes Maritimes, South of France, next to Monaco and Italy.
Eddie Heaton:
Better guess than mine David , but whatever it is , it would appear to be integral with the trailer ;
Can you make out the department number on the 404 ?
06 I think. Alpes Maritimes, South of France, next to Monaco and Italy.
Beat me to it Dipster.
But that isn’t a police ■■■■■■ so may have travelled with them, so that doesn’t mean that is where they are. The tunnel and the road reminds me of the direct route I took after delivering a dog north of Perpignan and then set off after overnighting at the routier near La Palme on the old N9 via the most direct route to Mimizan, south of Bordeaux to collect another for Brittany. But of course it could be any number of places. That routier btw was very strange, it was run single handedly by on old woman and a chef but she kept Spanish hours. In other words you couldn’t get fed before 8 in the evening and there was no breakfast because she wasn’t exactly an early riser.
At first I thought the ■■■■■■ driver was trying to get in the picture but then thought that he had been stationary there blocking oncoming traffic and was just getting back in to carry on.
) and we have some vigorous discussions of this nature. 
