planetf1.com

tootsie323 wrote:

vikz22 wrote:adds that extra dimension to the dish, brings out the flavour of the ham and cheese

(sorry, i've been watching masterchief)

Well... I guess Jamie can stick his 15-minute meals where the sun doesn't shine then!

manchester?
we've been 3 years overdue a summer!

Biffa wrote:People (mostly politicians) who make a statement by asking themselves a question and then answering it, for example rather than saying...

I do not want to put crisps on my sandwich...

They say:

Would I want to put crisps on my sandwich? Of course not.

There is a good reason for doing this. When done in response to a question by an interviewer:

1 It gives them more time to think about an answer.

2 It allows their answer to be quoted or shown on screen without having the interviewer's question shown first. This is a preferred by the article writers/TV editors.
How often do you see the interviewer's quoted question which solicited the response in articles? It is always an article written around the quotes.
A good examples would be driver 'x' being asked about driver 'y' doing such and such, which results in a thread on the main forum titled "How dare 'x' say that!" as if 'x' called press conference to read a statement he had prepared. And so on... Button talking about Perez and the resultant thread on this forum, for example Though that thread doesn't follow the tone I stated, I couldn't be bothered to go further back to find an appropriate one, but you get the idea...
And yes, this is one of my annoyances and can lead me straight to the foe page in the user control panel, or at the very least to the post history before I decide that the original poster is totally devoid of any brain cells.

3 It can not be taken out of context without some naughty editing by the press/interviewer etc.

Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

tootsie323 wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:I've heard someone once saying "LOL" instead of actually laughing... I wanted to punch him!

Ooh, that's a biggie to me. My elder kids do exactly that. Obviously I am not allowed to punch them but if you would like to pop over for tea sometime..!

To expand on that: textspeak. And I mean those who actually speak the way they text. I don't even text the way people text, let alone speak that way so it really gets up my nose. I'd probably be a complete loss on Twatter (although I do actually have Twatter account - must be a touch of the hyprocrite here!).

Hehehe, no I was joking, I wouldn't punch someone for something trivial like that, but it does annoy me a lot.

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

real racism?

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

On the subject, I heard some shouting outside my house a couple of months ago. When I went out to see what was going on, there was a drunk guy there shouting a load of abuse at my Italian housemate. I kind of saw red and punched him, then when turning to take said housemate back inside, a copper walked calmly out of the shadows. I saw him reach for his handcuffs, but as he looked at me he simply winked, went past me, and cuffed the tosser I'd just punched. Not a word more was said about the punch.

[I know, it's xenophobia rather than racism, but it's a story I like sharing. It gives me hope in the existence of common sense!]

SchumieRules wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:I've heard someone once saying "LOL" instead of actually laughing... I wanted to punch him!

Ooh, that's a biggie to me. My elder kids do exactly that. Obviously I am not allowed to punch them but if you would like to pop over for tea sometime..!

To expand on that: textspeak. And I mean those who actually speak the way they text. I don't even text the way people text, let alone speak that way so it really gets up my nose. I'd probably be a complete loss on Twatter (although I do actually have Twatter account - must be a touch of the hyprocrite here!).

Hehehe, no I was joking, I wouldn't punch someone for something trivial like that, but it does annoy me a lot.

Well I can telu m8 txting has not affected me @all

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

real racism?

Define 'real' racism and I'll let you know. But I could extend my original annoyance to any bigotry.

bbobeckyj wrote:

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

real racism?

Define 'real' racism and I'll let you know. But I could extend my original annoyance to any bigotry.

Well I'll probably get into some kind of flame war here, but in my personal view and as an example, I find it hard to think of this current football stuff (Suarez and the like) as "real racism". To me, this is just disrespectful and insulting beviour and language, on a par with any other kind of deliberately insulting behaviour targetted at someone's physical appearance or attributes. The fact it's treated as "racism", which for me is more about prejudice and the application of a system or set of rules which affords different rights / treatment to people on the basis of race, is an annoyance. It annoys me because (in the football case) the response of the FA, which is full of people clambering over each other to be seen to be more against racism than anyone else, is to suggest putting in place racist (or at best, "discrimatory") measures.

You did ask, but I wouldn't want to turn this into a racism thread!

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

real racism?

Define 'real' racism and I'll let you know. But I could extend my original annoyance to any bigotry.

Well I'll probably get into some kind of flame war here, but in my personal view and as an example, I find it hard to think of this current football stuff (Suarez and the like) as "real racism". To me, this is just disrespectful and insulting beviour and language, on a par with any other kind of deliberately insulting behaviour targetted at someone's physical appearance or attributes. The fact it's treated as "racism", which for me is more about prejudice and the application of a system or set of rules which affords different rights / treatment to people on the basis of race, is an annoyance. It annoys me because (in the football case) the response of the FA, which is full of people clambering over each other to be seen to be more against racism than anyone else, is to suggest putting in place racist (or at best, "discrimatory") measures.

You did ask, but I wouldn't want to turn this into a racism thread!

I understand, I think. The difference being, real racism is what you find on stormfront, versus wanting to insult someone in the heat of the moment, and saying the first thing which comes to mind which you know will have an effect.

moby wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:I've heard someone once saying "LOL" instead of actually laughing... I wanted to punch him!

Ooh, that's a biggie to me. My elder kids do exactly that. Obviously I am not allowed to punch them but if you would like to pop over for tea sometime..!

To expand on that: textspeak. And I mean those who actually speak the way they text. I don't even text the way people text, let alone speak that way so it really gets up my nose. I'd probably be a complete loss on Twatter (although I do actually have Twatter account - must be a touch of the hyprocrite here!).

Hehehe, no I was joking, I wouldn't punch someone for something trivial like that, but it does annoy me a lot.

Well I can telu m8 txting has not affected me @all

Hahahaha,

Touche!!!

bbobeckyj wrote:

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

domdonald wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:Racism.

The only thing that I can currently think of which makes my blood boil.

real racism?

Define 'real' racism and I'll let you know. But I could extend my original annoyance to any bigotry.

Well I'll probably get into some kind of flame war here, but in my personal view and as an example, I find it hard to think of this current football stuff (Suarez and the like) as "real racism". To me, this is just disrespectful and insulting beviour and language, on a par with any other kind of deliberately insulting behaviour targetted at someone's physical appearance or attributes. The fact it's treated as "racism", which for me is more about prejudice and the application of a system or set of rules which affords different rights / treatment to people on the basis of race, is an annoyance. It annoys me because (in the football case) the response of the FA, which is full of people clambering over each other to be seen to be more against racism than anyone else, is to suggest putting in place racist (or at best, "discrimatory") measures.

You did ask, but I wouldn't want to turn this into a racism thread!

I understand, I think. The difference being, real racism is what you find on stormfront, versus wanting to insult someone in the heat of the moment, and saying the first thing which comes to mind which you know will have an effect.

Exactly. So whilst tackling real racism is a very serious and necessary business, and acknowledging that language can be a means of conveying racist views, i feel that these efforts are often undermined by those who focus on "political correctness" issues rather than dealing with the real problem. That goes in the "annoyance" category for me.

bbobeckyj wrote:

Biffa wrote:People (mostly politicians) who make a statement by asking themselves a question and then answering it, for example rather than saying...

I do not want to put crisps on my sandwich...

They say:

Would I want to put crisps on my sandwich? Of course not.

There is a good reason for doing this. When done in response to a question by an interviewer:

1 It gives them more time to think about an answer.

2 It allows their answer to be quoted or shown on screen without having the interviewer's question shown first. This is a preferred by the article writers/TV editors.
How often do you see the interviewer's quoted question which solicited the response in articles? It is always an article written around the quotes.
A good examples would be driver 'x' being asked about driver 'y' doing such and such, which results in a thread on the main forum titled "How dare 'x' say that!" as if 'x' called press conference to read a statement he had prepared. And so on... Button talking about Perez and the resultant thread on this forum, for example Though that thread doesn't follow the tone I stated, I couldn't be bothered to go further back to find an appropriate one, but you get the idea...
And yes, this is one of my annoyances and can lead me straight to the foe page in the user control panel, or at the very least to the post history before I decide that the original poster is totally devoid of any brain cells.

3 It can not be taken out of context without some naughty editing by the press/interviewer etc.

I agree there is a reason for it all right, whether it’s a good reason is a matter of opinion though…

What we have is politicians being trained by media/PR people how to ‘answer questions properly’, to evade, bridge subjects, cover etc. On the other side we get interviewers whose main goal seems to be to catch them out with any decent debate coming a distant second.

No, I realise why they do it, but still annoys the hell out of me.

Biffa wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

Biffa wrote:People (mostly politicians) who make a statement by asking themselves a question and then answering it, for example rather than saying...

I do not want to put crisps on my sandwich...

They say:

Would I want to put crisps on my sandwich? Of course not.

There is a good reason for doing this. When done in response to a question by an interviewer:

1 It gives them more time to think about an answer.

2 It allows their answer to be quoted or shown on screen without having the interviewer's question shown first. This is a preferred by the article writers/TV editors.
How often do you see the interviewer's quoted question which solicited the response in articles? It is always an article written around the quotes.
A good examples would be driver 'x' being asked about driver 'y' doing such and such, which results in a thread on the main forum titled "How dare 'x' say that!" as if 'x' called press conference to read a statement he had prepared. And so on... Button talking about Perez and the resultant thread on this forum, for example Though that thread doesn't follow the tone I stated, I couldn't be bothered to go further back to find an appropriate one, but you get the idea...
And yes, this is one of my annoyances and can lead me straight to the foe page in the user control panel, or at the very least to the post history before I decide that the original poster is totally devoid of any brain cells.

3 It can not be taken out of context without some naughty editing by the press/interviewer etc.

I agree there is a reason for it all right, whether it’s a good reason is a matter of opinion though…

What we have is politicians being trained by media/PR people how to ‘answer questions properly’, to evade, bridge subjects, cover etc. On the other side we get interviewers whose main goal seems to be to catch them out with any decent debate coming a distant second.

No, I realise why they do it, but still annoys the hell out of me.

Right, such as:

"It's a very good question and I leave it upon everyone to answer it themselves"

1) People eating crisps with mouth open, or any food with mouth open. My formed house mate was incapable of closing his mouth I think, and would regularly have some kind of sloppy food to slurp on, or somethign crunchy to demolish as loud as possible... and always with some quiet DVD or program on TV so that all you could hear was food-churning anguish...

2) Idiots.

3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

4) People unwilling to see more than their own point of view.

5) People who repeat their thoughts incessantly. I.E. my mother.

6) People who think that their sentence has far more importance than yours, and as such decides it's much more beneficial to everyone if they butt in and speak over you. I regularly have to apologise for the middle of my sentence interupting the start of their sentence. How rude of me.

I think I'll stop and let someone else get something off their chest before I continue... I'm an angry person

Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

jammin78 wrote:1) People eating crisps with mouth open, or any food with mouth open. My formed house mate was incapable of closing his mouth I think, and would regularly have some kind of sloppy food to slurp on, or somethign crunchy to demolish as loud as possible... and always with some quiet DVD or program on TV so that all you could hear was food-churning anguish...

2) Idiots.

3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

4) People unwilling to see more than their own point of view.

5) People who repeat their thoughts incessantly. I.E. my mother.

6) People who think that their sentence has far more importance than yours, and as such decides it's much more beneficial to everyone if they butt in and speak over you. I regularly have to apologise for the middle of my sentence interupting the start of their sentence. How rude of me.

I think I'll stop and let someone else get something off their chest before I continue... I'm an angry person

Nr 3 is a bit unfair, especially in the forum. Not everyone's first language is English, so you need to be patient. My first language is not English, I'm sure I've written some gems over the years!

Nr 6 is my pet hatred since my company employed the guy sitting next to me. He actually raises his voice to talk over me or whoever he has a conversation with. Which makes it difficult to even have a conversation with someone who is just interested to hear himself, nothing else. Very annoying

SchumieRules wrote:

jammin78 wrote:1) People eating crisps with mouth open, or any food with mouth open. My formed house mate was incapable of closing his mouth I think, and would regularly have some kind of sloppy food to slurp on, or somethign crunchy to demolish as loud as possible... and always with some quiet DVD or program on TV so that all you could hear was food-churning anguish...

2) Idiots.

3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

4) People unwilling to see more than their own point of view.

5) People who repeat their thoughts incessantly. I.E. my mother.

6) People who think that their sentence has far more importance than yours, and as such decides it's much more beneficial to everyone if they butt in and speak over you. I regularly have to apologise for the middle of my sentence interupting the start of their sentence. How rude of me.

I think I'll stop and let someone else get something off their chest before I continue... I'm an angry person

Nr 3 is a bit unfair, especially in the forum. Not everyone's first language is English, so you need to be patient. My first language is not English, I'm sure I've written some gems over the years!

Nr 6 is my pet hatred since my company employed the guy sitting next to me. He actually raises his voice to talk over me or whoever he has a conversation with. Which makes it difficult to even have a conversation with someone who is just interested to hear himself, nothing else. Very annoying

N3 I wouldn't hold against anyone who's first language isn't english, its usually a hatred reserved for those people I know SHOULD be able to spell correctly, but don't. Basically, Facebook status/twitter updates from people who were in the same school and English class as me, yet can't do it correctly. Otherwise, I'm relatively lenient haha. I think it just irritates me because I'm a novel writer, so I constantly check what I've written to make sure it's correct, so I end up doing it with other people too.

N6, I'm glad we agree, so many rude people who you can't have conversations with aren't there?

jammin78 wrote:Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

Someone actually said to my (German) friend the other day 'No offence but I hate the Germans.' Seriously, that's how you're gonna start that conversation?!

oh.. my biggest annoyance of all?

People who can't say "TH" properly and say "F" instead.. even some BBC presenters and reporters say "Fink" and "Fought" these days. It's almost totally accepted in the UK now and it's so common that there's almost no coming back from it.

My kids are half german, with german as their first language, and although the TH sound is difficult for germans, I'm gonna make damn sure mine say it properly!

jammin78 wrote:
N3 i wouldnnt hold against anyone Who's first langage isn't not english, its usually a hating reversed for those peopl I know SHOULD be abel to spel correctly, but don't. Basikally, Facebook statous/twitter updates from peopl who we're in the same schooll and English class as me, yet can't do it corectly. Otherwise, I'm relatively lennient haha. I think it just irritates me becoz I'm a novel writter, so I constantly check what I've written to make sure it's correct, so I and up doing it with other people two.

There, I think I fixed it for you my friend!

Rachie_D wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

Someone actually said to my (German) friend the other day 'No offence but I hate the Germans.' Seriously, that's how you're gonna start that conversation?!

As soon as someone starts a sentence like that, it's almost like a clear view into their soul...

"I'm not being mean but..." - you are being mean, and you know it.
"I don't mean to offend you but..." - you do mean to offend me, don't you?
"I'm not being racist but..." - you think you're part of the superior race?

You've got to love people.

SchumieRules wrote:

jammin78 wrote:
N3 i wouldnnt hold against anyone Who's first langage isn't not english, its usually a hating reversed for those peopl I know SHOULD be abel to spel correctly, but don't. Basikally, Facebook statous/twitter updates from peopl who we're in the same schooll and English class as me, yet can't do it corectly. Otherwise, I'm relatively lennient haha. I think it just irritates me becoz I'm a novel writter, so I constantly check what I've written to make sure it's correct, so I and up doing it with other people two.

There, I think I fixed it for you my friend!

K thnx xx

jammin78 wrote:

Rachie_D wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

Someone actually said to my (German) friend the other day 'No offence but I hate the Germans.' Seriously, that's how you're gonna start that conversation?!

As soon as someone starts a sentence like that, it's almost like a clear view into their soul...

"I'm not being mean but..." - you are being mean, and you know it.
"I don't mean to offend you but..." - you do mean to offend me, don't you?
"I'm not being racist but..." - you think you're part of the superior race?

You've got to love people.

This is a general tendency, people opening any sentence trying to convince you about something that it is not true.

My ex flatmate for example, received a bill from the landlady and emailed it to me opening with the sentence "As you'll see I've been fair in splitting the costs between us...". When he was blatantly not, but that's another story!

jammin78 wrote:Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

I hear that thre or four times a day on average. I work in a UK based tech support line and often we need to refer people off to their ISP or computer manufacturers.

"I'm not racist but their call center is in Bangalore and I hate that." To which I would reply to my friends "Well go with a more expensive ISP that has UK call centers then." but to my customers I can only make some vague comment about a lot of call centers being overseas these days.

MrMuttley wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually, just one more...

7) Any sentence starting "I'm not racist, but..."

I hear that thre or four times a day on average. I work in a UK based tech support line and often we need to refer people off to their ISP or computer manufacturers.

"I'm not racist but their call center is in Bangalore and I hate that." To which I would reply to my friends "Well go with a more expensive ISP that has UK call centers then." but to my customers I can only make some vague comment about a lot of call centers being overseas these days.

But the annoying thing for me is: why should anyone feel that they HAVE to precede a perfectly valid and reasonably grounded opinion with that disclaimer? This is the point in my earlier post about "real racism" and political correctness. Because of the ramifications of making a comment that a small but vocal minority might consider to be offensive for some reason, the rest of us (you, actually, since germany doesn't generally suffer from political correctness) are unable to even make a comment about a country or a colour (in any context) without the fear of being thought of as racist!

Morrissey

SchumieRules wrote:

Biffa wrote:People (mostly politicians) who make a statement by asking themselves a question and then answering it, for example rather than saying...

I do not want to put crisps on my sandwich...

They say:

Would I want to put crisps on my sandwich? Of course not.

That reminds me of people doing something similar here:

Did Narain cheat? No
Did Alonso pass Newey on track? No
Did Webber eat a cake? Yes


And then the verdict, as if it is a court or something!

THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!

(for those who know)

Radio 1 and 90% of the 'Music' they play.

Special mention for Nick Grimshaw. If Chris Moyles was irritating at least he was funny.

coulthards chin wrote:Radio 1 and 90% of the 'Music' they play.

Special mention for Nick Grimshaw. If Chris Moyles was irritating at least he was funny.

Went off Radio 1 years and years ago when we had to put up Steve Wright and "the Posse". Laughing raucously at their own "jokes" just to boost their own egos... pah! There's not a lot of "music" on R1 either.. perhaps that's just because I'm getting older, or never knew what "trendy" meant.

jammin78 wrote:
3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

I'm with you. My grammar is also far from perfect, but I try.

And the number of people who know do not seem to understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangable grinds my gears. "He won more then the other guy" is quite common, especially with Americans and it really irritates me.

edit: when my boss emails me and wants to either meet at 7pm tonight (I have plans) or meet at 7:30am tomorrow.

mac_d wrote:

jammin78 wrote:
3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

I'm with you. My grammar is also far from perfect, but I try.

And the number of people who know do not seem to understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangable grinds my gears. "He won more then the other guy" is quite common, especially with Americans and it really irritates me.

edit: when my boss emails me and wants to either meet at 7pm tonight (I have plans) or meet at 7:30am tomorrow.

there they're their

When my Red Bull goes flat

Ashley's Hardship of the Day, brought to you by the 1 2 3 Current Account from Santander.


Oh! Oh! Most annoying thing ever - 1 2 3 CURRENT ACCOUNT FROM SANTANDER COMMERCIALS ON SKY! Thank dog they won't be back next year.

bbobeckyj wrote:

mac_d wrote:

jammin78 wrote:
3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

I'm with you. My grammar is also far from perfect, but I try.

And the number of people who know do not seem to understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangable grinds my gears. "He won more then the other guy" is quite common, especially with Americans and it really irritates me.

edit: when my boss emails me and wants to either meet at 7pm tonight (I have plans) or meet at 7:30am tomorrow.

there they're their

affect effect

your you're yaw.

Actually these don't bother me that much. If someone is being a grammar nazi > like too right sentences that sound write but have the wrong words in them like "yaw board aunt yew"

SchumieRules wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

mac_d wrote:

jammin78 wrote:
3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

I'm with you. My grammar is also far from perfect, but I try.

And the number of people who know do not seem to understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangable grinds my gears. "He won more then the other guy" is quite common, especially with Americans and it really irritates me.

edit: when my boss emails me and wants to either meet at 7pm tonight (I have plans) or meet at 7:30am tomorrow.

there they're their

affect effect

i get these wrong fairly often, someone once told me the rules on them, but i still get them wrong

vikz22 wrote:

SchumieRules wrote:

bbobeckyj wrote:

mac_d wrote:

jammin78 wrote:
3) Poor spelling/grammar. I'm not perfect with grammar, and sometimes spell words incorrectly, but when people write "their not happy" or "there not going to be happy" and any other incorrect use of their/they're/there, it really annoys me. Also, another example I saw today was "Why did Mclaren picked Montoya"... GRAMMAR!!! ARGH!!!!

I'm with you. My grammar is also far from perfect, but I try.

And the number of people who know do not seem to understand that "than" and "then" are not interchangable grinds my gears. "He won more then the other guy" is quite common, especially with Americans and it really irritates me.

edit: when my boss emails me and wants to either meet at 7pm tonight (I have plans) or meet at 7:30am tomorrow.

there they're their

affect effect

i get these wrong fairly often, someone once told me the rules on them, but i still get them wrong

If you are not from somewhere where English is the first language it is easy to get them wrong I suppose. I was talking more about people with English as the first language

SchumieRules wrote:

vikz22 wrote:

i get these wrong fairly often, someone once told me the rules on them, but i still get them wrong

If you are not from somewhere where English is the first language it is easy to get them wrong I suppose. I was talking more about people with English as the first language

i'm an english native speaker, who won the english award at my secondary school (A* in eng. lit and A in eng. language at GCSE, some years ago mind)

science has ruined me!

Damn you Science!!!!!!!

Loose and lose.. I am sure the majority doesn't know the difference..

domdonald wrote:Loose and lose.. I am sure the majority doesn't know the difference..

I do! Yay!

*sings* I wanna be the minority...