Tesco and Asda remove fancy dress costumes

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

Likely -
Definitions
adjective

1. usually foll by an infinitive tending or inclined; apt ⇒ likely to rain
2. probable ⇒ a likely result
3. believable or feasible; plausible
4. appropriate for a purpose or activity
5. having good possibilities of success ⇒ a likely candidate
6. (dialect (mainly US) attractive, agreeable, or enjoyable ⇒ her likely ways won her many friends
adverb

7. probably or presumably
8. See as likely as not

I was reading it as Nos. 2, 5 & 7.
You were intending 8.

I win 3-1.

Dude you just posted a new level of epic fail.

This is an example of posting for the sake of not wanting to be wrong even if the thing you've posted (above) proves that you are in fact wrong.

Edit: You've already admitted so above, in a round about way. And thus my whole point about the decline in quality and increase in pathetic behaviour on this website.

Even Porgy could put up a better effort.

pinno

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some people need to lighten up.

Meh, it ...

This might give a bit of context.

What kind of moderator are you that you allow a thread to exist where is only purpose its to direct people to other threads where they can troll the board?

Shockingly useless.

You make some reasoned points DondaddyD. However, you have got he wrong end of the stick a little.

The link to other threads is not about trolling, it is when a couple of lycra boys get all girly and get their handbags out. We only step in when the toys get chucked out of the saddle bags.
Its funny and we love a good thread that kicks off because it suddenly goes personal and the reasoned debate goes out of the window.
In my opinion, when someone uses personal comments in an argument, he/she has lost the argument.

The Chinese say: Never argue with a fool or people might not know the difference.
On a sub-note, Daviesee is a total and utter fruitcake - so it's a waste of time arguing with him.

On another footnote, visit cake stop more often and then form your opinion of us.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude you just posted a new level of epic fail.

This is an example of posting for the sake of not wanting to be wrong even if the thing you've posted (above) proves that you are in fact wrong.

Edit: You've already admitted so above, in a round about way. And thus my whole point about the decline in quality and increase in pathetic behaviour on this website.

Even Porgy could put up a better effort.

Disagrees.
The definition shows that your sentence could be interpreted differently too how you intended.
If it can be interpreted incorrectly, then it was written incorrectly.

DonDaddyD

pinarello001 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Some people need to lighten up.

Meh, it ...

This might give a bit of context.

What kind of moderator are you that you allow a thread to exist where is only purpose its to direct people to other threads where they can troll the board?

Shockingly useless.

You make some reasoned points DondaddyD. However, you have got he wrong end of the stick a little.

The link to other threads is not about trolling, it is when a couple of lycra boys get all girly and get their handbags out. We only step in when the toys get chucked out of the saddle bags.
Its funny and we love a good thread that kicks off because it suddenly goes personal and the reasoned debate goes out of the window.
In my opinion, when someone uses personal comments in an argument, he/she has lost the argument.

The Chinese say: Never argue with a fool or people might not know the difference.
On a sub-note, Daviesee is a total and utter fruitcake - so it's a waste of time arguing with him.

On another footnote, visit cake stop more often and then form your opinion of us.

Fair enough, I may have called that thread wrong.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dude you just posted a new level of epic fail.

This is an example of posting for the sake of not wanting to be wrong even if the thing you've posted (above) proves that you are in fact wrong.

Edit: You've already admitted so above, in a round about way. And thus my whole point about the decline in quality and increase in pathetic behaviour on this website.

Even Porgy could put up a better effort.

Disagrees.
The definition shows that your sentence could be interpreted differently too how you intended.
If it can be interpreted incorrectly, then it was written incorrectly.

In each of your examples from that definition (2, 5 and 7) the equal opposite is equally plausible, because likely is not an absolute.

Dude, you lost. The discussion is over. Move on.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

In each of your examples from that definition (2, 5 and 7) the equal opposite is equally plausible, because likely is not an absolute.

Dude, you lost. The discussion is over. Move on.

Probable does not equal improbable.
A likely candidate does not equal an unlikely candidate.

Bookies would love you.

Accept it and move on.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In each of your examples from that definition (2, 5 and 7) the equal opposite is equally plausible, because likely is not an absolute.

Dude, you lost. The discussion is over. Move on.

Probable does not equal improbable.
A likely candidate does not equal an unlikely candidate.

Bookies would love you.

Accept it and move on.

Yes, but if something was (2.) probable it doesn't mean that it is always going to happen, if a person is a (5) likely candidate it doesn't mean that they are going to get the job, (7) if something probably could occur it doesn't mean that it will always occur.

Hence:
"for all those cyclists that have had accidents they are likely to be, in some way, affected mentally."

Is not incorrect because it isn't stating that they will always be affected mentally.

Even then, you conceed this point:

BigMat wrote:

Any significant event will have some impact on you "mentally" - you will adjust your response to certain situations, "learn" from experience as it were. You might not learn much, any change in behaviour might be sub-conscious, but it will have an effect. You might not have PTSD, say, but perhaps you'll be a bit twitchy when you hear an engine behind you, or remember to stop at a red light, or whatever. That's how humans behave.

So to continue arguing means that you are actually just trolling now.

daviesee

Not trolling, just pointing out errors.
Big Matts answer was perfectly acceptable.
I was pointing out that likely can be read as probable.
I will conclude that I am extra ordinary as I have been through a trauma and didn't suffer the proposed probable effects.
Anyway, I am away for some fruitcake.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

Not trolling, just pointing out errors.
Big Matts answer was perfectly acceptable.
I was pointing out that likely can be read as probable.
I will conclude that I am extra ordinary as I have been through a trauma and didn't suffer the proposed probable effects.
Anyway, I am away for some fruitcake.

But even if a potential outcome was probable there is a chance that the outcome won't occur because probable does not equate to an absolute certainty.

So, again you fail.

What I wrote does not describe an absolute certainty.

"for all those cyclists that have had accidents they are likely to be, in some way, affected mentally."

daviesee

At no point have I mentioned certainty.
Likely meaning probably, meaning more likely to happen than not, meaning an expected result. None of which is certain.
The fruitcake is lovely.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

At no point have I mentioned certainty.
Likely meaning probably, meaning more likely to happen than not, meaning an expected result. None of which is certain.
The fruitcake is lovely.

Even if you use that logic what part of my post do you belive to be incorrect?

"for all those cyclists that have had accidents they are likely to be, in some way, affected mentally."

Especially when you have alredy conceded this:

BigMat wrote:

Any significant event will have some impact on you "mentally" - you will adjust your response to certain situations, "learn" from experience as it were. You might not learn much, any change in behaviour might be sub-conscious, but it will have an effect. You might not have PTSD, say, but perhaps you'll be a bit twitchy when you hear an engine behind you, or remember to stop at a red light, or whatever. That's how humans behave.

daviesee

My problem was your use of the word "likely" which can be read as "probably".
Big Mats answer was acceptable as he had a definition of level of being affected as a learning curve.
Yours read as probably leading to mental issues, the least serious being anxiety attacks.
The problem was the level of probability and the severity of the results.

I've finished the fruitcake but still have the munchies. Any ideas?

Mikey23

I work with some guys who are higher functioning autistic who debate just like this... Interesting

seanoconn

Mikey23 wrote:

I work with some guys who are higher functioning autistic who debate just like this... Interesting

It dragged on too long, neither win, double fail.

Mikey23

Tee hee... I got bored with the issue on page one but the arguments on here have been fascinating. Did conduct a bit of a straw poll with the parents of the guys I support. Neither had seen the item and weren't overly fussed. In the context of discrimination against those with mental illness it's pretty small beer to be honest but I don't think multinationals should get away with it, they really should no better...

I would say that more than one of the contributors here live somewhere on the autism/asbergers spectrum. I hope nobody has a prob with me saying that :-) having to have the minutiae of the argument fully debated and deconstructed and concern about the meaning and context of words is a characteristic particularly when the outcome of the discussion is pointless

pinno

Mikey23 wrote:

Tee hee...

...having to have the minutiae of the argument fully debated and deconstructed and concern about the meaning and context of words is a characteristic particularly when the outcome of the discussion is pointless

Uh? Wtf are you sayin' like? I put what you said into google translate into Spanish, then Chinese and then back to English and it now makes perfect sense, See:

Have a full debate and deconstruct arguments and concerns the meaning and context of the words is a function of the details, especially when the outcome of the discussion is useless

Mikey23

It was a polite way of saying you is all a load of wonkers :-)

Kieran_Burns

Mikey23 wrote:

Tee hee... I got bored with the issue on page one but the arguments on here have been fascinating. Did conduct a bit of a straw poll with the parents of the guys I support. Neither had seen the item and weren't overly fussed. In the context of discrimination against those with mental illness it's pretty small beer to be honest but I don't think multinationals should get away with it, they really should no better...

I would say that more than one of the contributors here live somewhere on the autism/asbergers spectrum. I hope nobody has a prob with me saying that :-) having to have the minutiae of the argument fully debated and deconstructed and concern about the meaning and context of words is a characteristic particularly when the outcome of the discussion is pointless

Which was a conclusion I had come to some time ago.

arran77

Bloody hell, I have a busy afternoon and work and look what happens, you lot start some sort of debate off type thing, anyone care to explain it in one sentence, I can't be arsed to trawl throughout that lot, have we concluded that these costumes are not offensive to mentalists (for want of a better word) apart from the ones on here who are taking offence on behalf of the ones who don't give a shite :?

BillyMansell

Mikey23 wrote:

It was a polite way of saying you is all a load of wonkers :-)

It was a polite way of saying if you don't get this you're a neuro-typical retard like 95% of the population.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Mikey23 wrote:

asbergers

Is that like Aspergers?

You work in this area, you say?

Kieran_Burns

arran77 wrote:

Bloody hell, I have a busy afternoon and work and look what happens, you lot start some sort of debate off type thing, anyone care to explain it in one sentence, I can't be arsed to trawl throughout that lot, have we concluded that these costumes are not offensive to mentalists (for want of a better word) apart from the ones on here who are taking offence on behalf of the ones who don't give a shite :?

Someone posted about silly costumes poorly labelled
Some of us had a gentle laugh about it
Don got offended on behalf of everyone who has ever visited a therapist
Some of us had a dig at Don
Don went into excrutiating detail about how we will all burn in hell, and why. Or at least how likely, or probably, or certainly we will.
You turned up.

pinno

arran77 wrote:

Bloody hell, I have a busy afternoon and work and look what happens, you lot start some sort of debate off type thing, anyone care to explain it in one sentence, I can't be arsed to trawl throughout that lot, have we concluded that these costumes are not offensive to mentalists (for want of a better word) apart from the ones on here who are taking offence on behalf of the ones who don't give a shite :?

In a word - yep. In one sentence, no.

Bloke says costumes sold by ASDA/Tesco are offensive to people like you with mental health issues. Some other bloke contradicts first bloke. Another bloke says he's offended by contradictory blokes comments on behalf of fruit and nut cases like davieseee. OP does runner. Autistic blokes wade in slinging custard around. Daviesee comes back with fruitcake, not popcorn. Crikey Mikey gets free entertainment. You turn up.

Simples

notsoblue

This is a bit of a silly discussion to be honest.

Ultimately, this really just boils down to politeness. One of the nice things about the UK is that generally people don't have as much of a minefield of prejudice to negotiate throughout their daily life as they would in other countries. If the worst we have to put up with to achieve this is that occasionally we have a new story about two fancy dress costumes being pulled from the shelves, then I'm totally OK with that.

rolf_f

AAAAARRRRRRRGHHHHHHHH, all this is making me sooooo irrationally A*N*G*R*Y that I want to run amok with a MEAT CLEAVER ........ (thwackety chop chop......)

arran77

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

asbergers

Is that like Aspergers?

You work in this area, you say?

You say that picking up errors in the minutest of details is a sign of this mental health malarkey Mikey23

G66 needs a session on the shrinks couch then :P

Kieran_Burns

Rolf F wrote:

AAAAARRRRRRRGHHHHHHHH, all this is making me sooooo irrationally A*N*G*R*Y that I want to run amok with a MEAT CLEAVER ........ (thwackety chop chop......)

pinno

Rolf F needs a strong sweet cup of tea and a new prescription for prozac. Christ, you'll make a hell of a mess of my Azalea with that thing.

team47b

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well at least there was 3 -5 posts of sensible discussion until the cake stop brigade degenerated things back into pathetic insults and pointless comments. I'm out.

page 5

greg66_tri_v2.0

arran77 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

asbergers

Is that like Aspergers?

You work in this area, you say?

You say that picking up errors in the minutest of details is a sign of this mental health malarkey Mikey23

G66 needs a session on the shrinks couch then :P

I wondered who would be the first clot to think that would be a clever card to play. Congratulations. You win the prize.

A professed health worker misdescribing one of the more common mental health disorders is hardly the "minutest" of details.

I bet you'd be really happy you hear your GP tell you that he suspected you had a fructune of your clevicula, wouldn't you?