So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[ChrisB]

And I never comprehended, why someone drinks this disgusting sweet south-bavarian (Oktoberfest) beer at free will.

Preiß​

(My father’s family has origins near Cuxhaven, so I resemble that remark)

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Back on the topic of waiters, I find it irritating when a waiter asks, "What are we having to drink?" I sometimes mutter under my breath, "I don't know about you, but I'll have iced tea." My first name is Charles. My father's name was the same as was his father's. That makes me Charles III, but I'm not the King of England, Scotland and, Ireland, so I don't rate the royal "we". It's that combination artificial chumminess and obsequiousness that rubs me the wrong way.

Please waiters, don't ask me if "We" have "saved room for dessert" or "How are we today". I wonder if the abuse of "we" constitutes a mortal sin against my preferred pronoun? But that's another trivial thing that ticks me off.

 

[Turnip]

Lots of examples in the culinary world. Chocolate and tomatoes came from the Americas, yet are often associated with European cuisines. And nothing's more American than apple pie, yet apples are native to central Asia. It's a small world after all.

And it’s long time been a colonial and slavery one…

 

[GHT]

Are there any TV or radio adverts that annoy you so much it has you reaching for the mute button on the remote control? There was one such advert on the radio, so annoying was it that I never heard the name of the product, one nano-second into the spiel and I was stabbing the off button with ferocity.

What is it with the companies that design and create those adverts? For the life of me I can never understand how an irritating advert sells a product.

 

[Edward]

Back on the topic of waiters, I find it irritating when a waiter asks, "What are we having to drink?" I sometimes mutter under my breath, "I don't know about you, but I'll have iced tea." My first name is Charles. My father's name was the same as was his father's. That makes me Charles III, but I'm not the King of England, Scotland and, Ireland, so I don't rate the royal "we". It's that combination artificial chumminess and obsequiousness that rubs me the wrong way.

Please waiters, don't ask me if "We" have "saved room for dessert" or "How are we today". I wonder if the abuse of "we" constitutes a mortal sin against my preferred pronoun? But that's another trivial thing that ticks me off.

I've often wondered whether it's not so much a 'royal we' as an echo of some other language. English lacks a different term for "you plural" / "you polite" such as the French 'vous'. Could this use of 'we' be some sort of unconcious root in that kind of notion? Although I don't know the etymology of it, I would be surprised if the royal we itself is an echo from the French, French having been the language of the English royal court for generations after 1066.

Are there any TV or radio adverts that annoy you so much it has you reaching for the mute button on the remote control? There was one such advert on the radio, so annoying was it that I never heard the name of the product, one nano-second into the spiel and I was stabbing the off button with ferocity.

What is it with the companies that design and create those adverts? For the life of me I can never understand how an irritating advert sells a product.

I remember about 1984 there was one such in Northern Ireland, probably the first of its kind I remember. It was for some sort of baking product - sugar, I think - on local television. A woman pulls a cake out of the oven, and says "Perfect!" in a really exaggerated, back-streets of Belfast accent. Think Mick Jagger mockney, but Belfast. Everyone hated it - but it was all that got talked about for some time, and it didn't hurt the brand.

I have myself in adulthood gone out of my way to avoid brands and products where the ads have particularly irritated me, or a particular celebrity or event tie-in has grated or offended, but I suspect I'm not especially common in that respect. I should imagine a lot of ads are created with the Wlidean maxim about "not being talked about" in mind.

 

[GHT]

I should imagine a lot of ads are created with the Wlidean maxim about "not being talked about" in mind.

Of course, Oscar Wilde wrote "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about?" I had completely forgotten about Wilde's maxim and how he valued fame and attention. Even so I'm surprised that persisting annoyance still has positive results.

 

[Edward]

Of course, Oscar Wilde wrote "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about?" I had completely forgotten about Wilde's maxim and how he valued fame and attention. Even so I'm surprised that persisting annoyance still has positive results.

It does surprisingly often. United Colours of Benetton spent years placing ads designed to court controversy for attention. Course, one false move can also backfire: it's an awful lost easier to do a Ratner in these internet days.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's an insurance company with radio commercials featuring a salesman called "Big Lou," who tells his prospects that he's got the right insurance plan for their "trophy wives" and "all their past mistakes". I yell "F U BIG LOU" whenever he comes up, just as a matter of principle. I assume the advertiser presumes anybody listening to radio these days is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte who would find these spots relevant, but I can assure him that this not so.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^^
Gotta suspect that Big Lou’s pitch is far differently received by his target audience. There remains a substantial chunk of the population that responds favorably to characters who take apparent pleasure in being obnoxious jerks.

No need to name names.

 

[GHT]

There's an insurance company with radio commercials featuring a salesman called "Big Lou," who tells his prospects that he's got the right insurance plan for their "trophy wives" and "all their past mistakes". I yell "F U BIG LOU" whenever he comes up, just as a matter of principle. I assume the advertiser presumes anybody listening to radio these days is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte who would find these spots relevant, but I can assure him that this not so.

Knuckle-dragging troglodyte, I'm going to steal that! Brilliant!

 

[Who?]

Drooling cretin.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
I’m acquainted with a woman who has significant physical disabilities. She was quite excited when a fellow, an able-bodied man, asked her out on a date. Her fear was that she would have difficulty controlling her drooling.

It breaks my heart that people would belittle her on account of her disabilities.

 

[tonyb]

I've often wondered whether it's not so much a 'royal we' as an echo of some other language. English lacks a different term for "you plural" / "you polite" such as the French 'vous'. Could this use of 'we' be some sort of unconcious root in that kind of notion? Although I don't know the etymology of it, I would be surprised if the royal we itself is an echo from the French, French having been the language of the English royal court for generations after 1066.



I remember about 1984 there was one such in Northern Ireland, probably the first of its kind I remember. It was for some sort of baking product - sugar, I think - on local television. A woman pulls a cake out of the oven, and says "Perfect!" in a really exaggerated, back-streets of Belfast accent. Think Mick Jagger mockney, but Belfast. Everyone hated it - but it was all that got talked about for some time, and it didn't hurt the brand.

I have myself in adulthood gone out of my way to avoid brands and products where the ads have particularly irritated me, or a particular celebrity or event tie-in has grated or offended, but I suspect I'm not especially common in that respect. I should imagine a lot of ads are created with the Wlidean maxim about "not being talked about" in mind.

I’ve read that advertisements many might find obnoxious are often effective in that they’re memorable.

Is it true? Beats me. Seems plausible, though.

 

[Tiki Tom]

We usually watch a program, but put the TV on mute during the commercials. But we have nonetheless noticed an often used theme/tactic/whatever, especially on the local channels: “Look,” my wife will say, “more happy people dancing as they spend money!”
Advertising has devolved to happy people dancing.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

I've often wondered whether it's not so much a 'royal we' as an echo of some other language. English lacks a different term for "you plural" / "you polite" such as the French 'vous'. Could this use of 'we' be some sort of unconcious root in that kind of notion? Although I don't know the etymology of it, I would be surprised if the royal we itself is an echo from the French, French having been the language of the English royal court for generations after 1066.

English had singular and plural pronouns for the second person. "Thee, thou, and thine" were singular forms. Then beginning about the time British settlers came to North America, those forms fell out of favor. North American Quakers retained their use longer than the general population. Here's a Wikipedia link.

I've often thought that the elimination of distinct singular and plural forms from formal English has been stubbornly resisted in regional variants. In the southern US we have "y'all" and "all y'all". In a variant in New York City there is (or was) "youse" and "youse guys". In western Pennsylvania where I was raised we had "you" for the singular and "yinz" or "youns" (think you ones here).

Anyone from other parts of the US with a similar experience?

 

[Edward]

English had singular and plural pronouns for the second person. "Thee, thou, and thine" were singular forms. Then beginning about the time British settlers came to North America, those forms fell out of favor. North American Quakers retained their use longer than the general population. Here's a Wikipedia link.

I've often thought that the elimination of distinct singular and plural forms from formal English has been stubbornly resisted in regional variants. In the southern US we have "y'all" and "all y'all". In a variant in New York City there is (or was) "youse" and "youse guys". In western Pennsylvania where I was raised we had "you" for the singular and "yinz" or "youns" (think you ones here).

Anyone from other parts of the US with a similar experience?

Interesting; hadn't thought of thee/thine. In the NE corner of Ireland where I grew up, out dialect had "yous" or "yeez" / "yiz" for you plural, though it was always heavily discouraged by our educators and those who spoke "correectly".

 

[Zombie_61]

I’ve read that advertisements many might find obnoxious are often effective in that they’re memorable.

Is it true? Beats me. Seems plausible, though.

I think the drooling cretins of the world (or the nation, at least) recognize something of themselves in the obnoxious advertising characters, not realizing it's actually an insult.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm partial to "allayez," "oneayez," "sommayez," etc, all variations of the Irish "yez/yous" that was once common in Northeastern dialects. Its supplantation by "y'all," first on the Internet and now, increasingly, in speech, is an example of creeping Southernification which must be resisted by all proud Yankees of the geographical, not baseball, sort.

 

[Tiki Tom]

My wife (definitely a Yankee) occasionally uses “y’all”. We’ve Often wondered where she got it from. Never suspected that the internet might be to blame. Yes, come to think of it, I have seen people use it in their text messages.

 

[Trenchfriend]

^^^^^
I think you’re asking if there’s such a thing as a “windproof” lighter.

If so, I’d like to know as well. I don’t smoke, but I still occasionally have need to start a fire.

I still like the storm lighter topic.

Now, I know how to call the real storm lighter, I got next to my jet flame lighters. It's a catalysis lighter. Another pro is, that you can use it as storm lighter or classic lighter. The wire keeps the flame going.
But it's said, that these wires never last that long.