# Warning - aware of scammers!



## misterfish (29 Jun 2021)

I know most of us are aware of scams and scammers and need to be alert at all times.

I've just had an interesting afternoon! it started with a DPD delivery that I wasn't expecting - I always get notification of when to expect a delivery but this came out of the blue. The package was addressed to me though mentiioned 'Flat 7' rather than just the number 7. It was definately a real DPD delivery that I initially thought was for my son, but it was for me and it had the 'battery inside' warning label on the outside of the package. I opened it and inside were two new iPad 11 phones and sim cards with a Vodaphone delivery note. Nothing to do with me I thought, but it rang alarm bells as I try to keep aware of scams. 

I'd only just opened the package when the doorbell rang and I opened the door to a different DPD driver who tried to tell me that a mistake had been made and the parcel was not for me and he wanted to collect it. My internal alarm bells were ringing as he had walked up our drive with no sign of a van so I asked for his ID. After a search he found he had forgfotten it and rang his mate saying he was going to get his ID from his van (which couldn't be seen anywhere). Off he went and my wife could see him standing in the middle of the road obviously looking for his 'van' but probably really waiting for his accomplice. A couple of minutes later he was back (still on foot) with his 'ID' - a brand new card with a name, his picture and a DPD logo; the back of the card was blank! At this point I made it clear that I waas not handing anything over and contacting Vodaphone. I insisted on a photograph of him.

I phoned Vodaphone and after they checked the details on the delivery note in the box gave me the contact details so that I can arrange for the real DPD to collect and return the package to Vodaphone. Meanwhile my son (who is working from home) called the police and they will be visiting to take a statement about what has happened and are interested in the photograph I have taken!


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jun 2021)

That's a weird one. Personally I think I might have waited it out a bit longer.


----------



## Cabinetman (29 Jun 2021)

So they used somebody else’s card to order them to your address and watched for it being delivered and then tried to collect? I think a lot of people would’ve said what iPhones, I know nothing about an iPhone delivery


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jun 2021)

Oh I should add, I would be extra vigilant tonight about the home security.


----------



## D_W (29 Jun 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Oh I should add, I would be extra vigilant tonight about the home security.


unlikely to be an issue.

The real follow-up question at this point is whether or not they used the OP's ID to order the phone, or if they made his address a gift address on a third party's credit card or ID information. The latter isn't great, but it's better than the former. 

This isn't uncommon, and variations do exist where the purchaser is scammed - as in, you buy an item from a retailer and you get a tracking number that somehow subverts the tracking system, and when you're notified of delivery, the item in question isn't on your doorstep, but you've paid for it, the retailer is either in on it or can confirm that you ordered it and you never get it and an audit of the tracking item will yield not too much as what's exploited seems to be a snafu in being able to change the delivery address from what's entered on the website to something else (credit card companies don't hold you responsible here, but it's annoying). 

Whatever the case above, the individuals wanting the phone will be angry that they didn't get the phones that someone else paid for, but they're looking to keep doing this, not to get caught in an assault charge. They'll move on.


----------



## D_W (29 Jun 2021)

(separately, this must be a pretty good scheme if someone is showing up in an official uniform or one made well enough to pass as one. 

Around here, when the version described above happens, it's usually porch pirates with something over their face and a blank shirt. The amazon ring share of the market must make it so that it's getting harder and harder to run up a sidewalk undetected.


----------



## misterfish (30 Jun 2021)

Hving been involved in IT (including aspects of security) I tend to be somewhat sceptical if things don't feel right! Many years ago I worked for the MOD and the one aspect of my initial induction training that I can still vividly see in my mind was the security course. All went as I would expect until the break and after we all asembled after coffee the first thing that happened was that we were asked if anybody had seen anything unusal. We all nodded 'no' at which juncture he grabbed a bag by the door that we had all missed and opened it to show a dummy bomb inside! We'd all walked by it without noticing! A few minutes later he shouted loudly, pulled a gun out of his pocket and fired a few blanks in the air! We were shocked and I can still hear the sound and smell the cordite now and that happened 40 years ago! It shows you really take things in after shock tactics! So my adage is if it doesn't feel right then be very aware. 

I immediately checked my bank and credit card yesterday after it happened but nothing out of the ordinary. From what I have been able to find out the scammers use a stolen credit card and pick a random address. They use a 'burner' email address so they know when and where the delivery will take place and then wait until they see the DPD van as they have the notification of the approximate delivery date and time. They then send in their stooge (often doing a quick job on the side for easy cash!)

My neice on our family whatsapp group came up with the following 

Fake DPD workers jailed for laptop and iPhone delivery scam

Jeff


----------



## Just4Fun (30 Jun 2021)

Two things really puzzle me about this.

First, who or what is DPD?

Second, the article Jeff linked to reports that:
"[Judge Rupert Overbury] said the fact that Adefowora and Oyeniyi had access to delivery information inferred it was they who ordered the items.
How come a judge does not know the difference between "infer" and "imply"? A judge!


----------



## misterfish (30 Jun 2021)

DPD is a well known and used delivery company that offer quick delivery with a time slot of one hour on a particular day and also a real-time map of the delivery allowing you to follow the van as it goes about its deliveries.

The link to the newspaper article was merely a link sent to me. As for the semantics used by the judge I really can't comment but I would say that journalists are no renowned for accurate reporting.

Anyway, things move ahead. I have sent an email to Vodafone customer service expressing my concern/annoyance at the apparent disinterested customer service rep I spoke to yesterday. Also we have now had a visit from the local police giving them my stastement and copies of everything of relevance I have. They also have the photo of the supposed DPD person and they will check with DPD to see if he is known. If not, they will take the delivery as evidence to use in a prosecution as and when they catch up with him. I've also shown the picture to my wife's family firm who have a contract with DPD and know most of the drivers as all their orders for delivery are sent by DPD.

So now we wait for the next stage!

Jeff


----------



## RobinBHM (30 Jun 2021)

misterfish said:


> I know most of us are aware of scams and scammers and need to be alert at all times.
> 
> I've just had an interesting afternoon! it started with a DPD delivery that I wasn't expecting - I always get notification of when to expect a delivery but this came out of the blue. The package was addressed to me though mentiioned 'Flat 7' rather than just the number 7. It was definately a real DPD delivery that I initially thought was for my son, but it was for me and it had the 'battery inside' warning label on the outside of the package. I opened it and inside were two new iPad 11 phones and sim cards with a Vodaphone delivery note. Nothing to do with me I thought, but it rang alarm bells as I try to keep aware of scams.
> 
> ...



You need to be very careful.

Don't just return them

This happened to my sister with the latest iPhones.

What has happened is the scammers have taken created 2 phone contracts in your name, they probably don't the correct bank details, but they do have your home address, your name and other personal info.

The problem is the phone company will have a contract against your name and address - so if they find the bank account details are wrong for the direct debit, they will chase you for new details.

In my sisters case, I think it was phones4you - and they had no interest in sorting it out. She had to really kick up a stink before they cancelled the contracts in writing.


----------



## Blackswanwood (30 Jun 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> Second, the article Jeff linked to reports that:
> "[Judge Rupert Overbury] said the fact that Adefowora and Oyeniyi had access to delivery information inferred it was they who ordered the items.
> How come a judge does not know the difference between "infer" and "imply"? A judge!



Is the use of the word inferred not correct? I thought inferred is used when the conclusion is derived from a fact (and he has pointed out the fact earlier in the sentence) whereas implied is used where the facts are less obvious.

Sorry to be a pedant but the Judge isn’t here to stick up for himself


----------



## Just4Fun (1 Jul 2021)

No, infer means to conclude (from facts) whereas imply means to suggest. The fact that Adefowora and Oyeniyi had access to delivery information might _suggest_ it was they who ordered the items but it does not and cannot _conclude_ anything. A fact can _never_ conclude anything - a fact doesn't have a mind so how can it conclude anything? A fact might suggest (imply) somethng and a person might conclude (infer) something from that fact. The judge's use of infer is simply wrong.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2021)

Well. That's him told off.


----------



## planesleuth (1 Jul 2021)

Woot; you are crazy! These scum bags have your address and you just crossed them. I would be very concerned about that. You should have given them the package. Who the hell cares? Vodafone will claim on insurance and even if they don't, the cost of two phones is small change compared to their turnover. The system is at fault here...ineffective laws, ineffective penalties and police that can't or don't do their job properly. It's not your bag. No one will give a damn when you or the missus are in hospital.This is a war and you could be under attack. You have to know when to cut and run. I wouldn't risk my family's lives supporting this system with my 'bravery' that's for sure!!!


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> No, infer means to conclude (from facts) whereas imply means to suggest. The fact that Adefowora and Oyeniyi had access to delivery information might _suggest_ it was they who ordered the items but it does not and cannot _conclude_ anything. A fact can _never_ conclude anything - a fact doesn't have a mind so how can it conclude anything? A fact might suggest (imply) somethng and a person might conclude (infer) something from that fact. The judge's use of infer is simply wrong.


They were convicted. From that point there was no inference.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> No, infer means to conclude (from facts) whereas imply means to suggest. The fact that Adefowora and Oyeniyi had access to delivery information might _suggest_ it was they who ordered the items but it does not and cannot _conclude_ anything. A fact can _never_ conclude anything - a fact doesn't have a mind so how can it conclude anything? A fact might suggest (imply) somethng and a person might conclude (infer) something from that fact. The judge's use of infer is simply wrong.


I'd suggest the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins English dictionaries would view with the judge's use of the word to be correct.


----------



## Just4Fun (1 Jul 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> They were convicted. From that point there was no inference.


The judge was explaining what he concluded from the fact. If there were no inference he must not, by definition, have concluded anything since infer means to conclude from facts. I would find it worrying if the judge did not reach his conclusions based on the facts presented in evidence.



Blackswanwood said:


> I'd suggest the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins English dictionaries would view with the judge's use of the word to be correct.


Really? Then you would be wrong.

I don't have access to the OED but my copy of The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English" published by the Oxford University Press defines infer as: 


> reach an opinion (from facts or reasoning)



The Cambridge online dictionary defines infer as:


> to form an opinion or guess that something is true because of the information that you have



Collins says: 


> If you infer that something is the case, you decide that it is true on the basis of information that you already have.



Indeed, Collins goes further in saying:


> Some people use infer to mean 'imply', but many people consider this use to be incorrect.



In all of these it is clear that someone infers something from the facts. The facts do not infer something, they may imply something, and someone might infer (conclude) something based on the facts.

The judge said " the fact ... inferred it was they who ordered the items". Did the fact "reach an opinion" or "form an opinion" or "decide that it is true"? Clearly not: the judge did that.

There are loads of online sources to confirm this, such as 
Imply vs. Infer
How to Use Imply vs. infer Correctly – Grammarist
Imply or infer ?

Let's try another example: The judge's incorrect use of "infer" implies that he lacks a good grasp of English. The responses to my comment about that causes me to infer that the judge is not the only one.


----------



## selectortone (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> Let's try another example: The judge's incorrect use of "infer" implies that he lacks a good grasp of English. The responses to my comment about that causes me to infer that the judge is not the only one.


Shouldn't that be: "The judge's incorrect use of "infer" _infers_ that he lacks a good grasp of English?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I'd suggest the Oxford, Cambridge and Collins English dictionaries would view with the judge's use of the word to be correct.



Dictionaries record common usage, not necessarily correct usage.


----------



## Just4Fun (1 Jul 2021)

selectortone said:


> Shouldn't that be: "The judge's incorrect use of "infer" _infers_ that he lacks a good grasp of English?


Oh I do hope you are trolling.


----------



## selectortone (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> Oh I do hope you are trolling.


Just having a laugh. A scarce commodity in these here parts.


----------



## Just4Fun (1 Jul 2021)

selectortone said:


> Just having a laugh.


That's always a good thing


----------



## Spectric (1 Jul 2021)

planesleuth said:


> Woot; you are crazy! These scum bags have your address and you just crossed them. I would be very concerned about that. You should have given them the package. Who the hell cares? Vodafone will claim on insurance and even if they don't, the cost of two phones is small change compared to their turnover.


That is why insurance premiums just keep rising and the scumbags keep being scumbags. Shame the guy was not a farmer, he could have pointed a shotgun at them and called the police, but then I suppose they would have claimed compensation for stress and he would have got charged as the system now provides scumbags with human rights and the police like them as it keeps them employed. If you watch that program about the police in Sheffield it is really an eye opener, the police know they have lost and are powerless in so many situations that they just look like they play the game, since when does a copper become a social worker, whilst doing this role a real scumbag is getting away.


----------



## D_W (1 Jul 2021)

Given that, I'd bet this won't become a scam in rural texas.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> The judge was explaining what he concluded from the fact. If there were no inference he must not, by definition, have concluded anything since infer means to conclude from facts. I would find it worrying if the judge did not reach his conclusions based on the facts presented in evidence.
> 
> 
> Really? Then you would be wrong.
> ...


I have to do the honourable thing and admit having read your explanation I see your point and agree you are actually correct.


----------



## Just4Fun (1 Jul 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I have to do the honourable thing and admit having read your explanation I see your point and agree you are actually correct.


Good. Nice to converse with a sensible person.
Now all I have to do is convince the judge.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Jul 2021)

Well this was unusual, had a Hermes driver knock on the door today, asking to collect a parcel. He was definitely working for Hermes as he had a stack of their collection cards and one of their phone/computer/scanner things which had my name and address on it. 

I didn't have a parcel to collect. What makes it more unusual? This is the second time this has happened in the last 2 weeks or so.


----------



## paulrbarnard (1 Jul 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> The judge was explaining what he concluded from the fact. If there were no inference he must not, by definition, have concluded anything since infer means to conclude from facts. I would find it worrying if the judge did not reach his conclusions based on the facts presented in evidence.
> 
> 
> Really? Then you would be wrong.
> ...



The knife cuts both ways…


----------



## misterfish (1 Jul 2021)

planesleuth said:


> police that can't or don't do their job properly!!!



Well, interesting but somewhat inaccurate in our case...

We've just had a second visit from our local police officer and things have developed!

He took the photo and the rest of the info and went to the DPD depot. They confirmed that the initial delivery of the package was legitimate and made by DPD (as we thought), but the second 'scam DPD' person was not known to them at all and the police of Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire now have his picture on their wanted list that is updated daily so if he is seen or known by any police officer in the 3 counties he will be 'invited to help them with their enquiries'! Also DPD are going to now sort out the return of the delivery and sort it out with Vodaphone!

I can't fault the actions of the police at all and can only praise the actions our local officers have taken. In fact all our dealings with the police have be excellent (apart from the miserable git that pulled me over for speeding 30 years ago!

As for feeling threatened, we don't particularly - more annoyed with the scumbags who we hope will get their due come uppance! Ttis attempt at scamming has failed but they have actually lost nothing of significance and the likelihood of returning here is minimal as they won't want to be seen here again and recognised. They will no doubt have others that also fail - in essence they have only lost the possibility of about £1,700 worth of kit that they would no doubt have sold for well below this value.

In a previous house when we lived in the Mendips we had a burglary taking place that was discovered by my wife and younger son when they returned from shopping. They quickly assessed the situation and my wife locked herself in the car wile my son had a look at the van they had parked in our yard. It so happened that the two scumbags had left the keys in the ignition and my son removed these and hid neaarby with a rock in hand ready to defend himself and my wife from the thugs. In this case they ran out and got into the van and then searched for the keys. Meanwhile my wife called 999 and was told to stay locked in the car and that help was on the way. When the thugs finally realised what was happening one of them threatened my wife while she was still locked in the car who shrugged and said she'd called the police at which point they made their biggest mistake and threatened
her with a claw hammer but rapidly ran off when they realised that they had no easy way to escape apart from running as far and fast as they could. The police arrived ina few minutes mob handed in a couple of police cars - one apologised as he was still wearing his running kit and they had dropped everything and driven as fast as they could without delay.

Suffice it to say that with the van, loaded with stuff they had removed from our house and copious amounts of fingerprints they were rapidly apprehended and my wife had the pleasure of attending an identity parade. The outcome was that they both served time at her Majesty's pleasure with the judge taking a really dim view of the 'gent' threatening her with a hammer and he was incarcerated for 4 years!

We believe we live in and should be members of a decent and safe society and that we should play our part as and when necessary and possible to try to keep it that way. If as was suggested we just handed over the package this would just give the scubags the green light to to carry on in their appaling ways and society would tend towards lawlessness and anarchy.

I was wondering whether to post the photo of the fake DPD man here so that others (that are woodworkers) throughout the country and around the world would be aware. (Acknowledgements to the late great Nicholas Parsons and 'Just a Minute' for the phraseology) Anyone got any thoughts on the matter.

The thing I find most annoying about this is Vodafone's reaction (or should I say total ignoring of the matter). From my initial phone call to them where I could get no understanding or reaction from their so called customer service person that this was a crime and subsequently no response to my email to them on the subject. I certainly wouldn't touch that company with a barge pole now. Even just a 'thank you' from them would be appreciated.

So now we hope that the next we hear is an arrest has been made and that I have to make a formal statement.

Jeff


----------



## D_W (1 Jul 2021)

I wouldn't post pictures of the guys online. Scumbags will sue and if they somehow get off on a technicality, you could be on the hook for defaming an "innocent person "


----------



## woodieallen (1 Jul 2021)

Well done, Jeff. But I'm not surprised at the attitude of Vodafone customer service. It's why I left them years ago. Hopeless.


----------



## Jester129 (2 Jul 2021)

D_W is right. Don't post the photo anywhere. They will sue you for defamation of character and it will cost you dearly. HTH.

Edit: This is true, it's a crazy world!


----------



## misterfish (2 Jul 2021)

Thanks everyone.

Jeff


----------



## sometimewoodworker (2 Jul 2021)

selectortone said:


> Shouldn't that be: "The judge's incorrect use of "infer" _infers_ that he lacks a good grasp of English?


Either, as implied above a troll, or a distinct lack of education


----------



## MARK.B. (3 Jul 2021)

If you want to advertise these scum, create a fake Facebook page or similar and plaster it all over the net


----------



## Ollie78 (3 Jul 2021)

My Dad had a thing where his Amazon got hacked, the first thing that happened was a package of Kitchen rolls arrived, he hadn't ordered any but didn't really think much about it. 
I think this was a test purchase to see if the victim noticed or not. Later it turned out they had bought a bunch of gift cards and vouchers. Amazon sorted it out quickly as it was obviously a hack.

I had the most blatant one so far the other day.

A guy rings me about my "accident" which does not exist of course. I said there was no accident, the guy was sort of suggesting that maybe there could have been an accident and it wasn't my fault etc. 
I said that surely that is fraud, the first guy couldn't understand what I was on about and had no concept of fraud or why it would be a problem. 
I was curious as to how it worked, he put on his supervisor who said that I could get £6000, 
He explained a bit how they do all the paperwork etc and all I would need to do was sign it. 
I said to this guy it was fraud and he openly agreed with me and suggested that it was an easy way to make a few grand. 
I said I wouldn't do it of course. But I wonder how many have!!

Bonkers. 

Ollie


----------



## NikNak (3 Jul 2021)

We're getting a lot of 'scam' calls just lately about our loft insulation not being correctly installed and that it will cause damp and fungus and that they are happy to come and do a survey to sort it all out. I leave a long pause.... then say "we dont have a loft, we live in a flat..." another long pause (i can hear the caller thinking....) then.... the phone goes dead....


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

NikNak said:


> We're getting a lot of 'scam' calls just lately about our loft insulation not being correctly installed and that it will cause damp and fungus and that they are happy to come and do a survey to sort it all out. I leave a long pause.... then say "we dont have a loft, we live in a flat..." another long pause (i can hear the caller thinking....) then.... the phone goes dead....


Don't do that - get them to come and do the survey.

Read a story once of a guy being plagued by a guttering company, who after a few "not interesteds" said sure, come and measure up and quote. Which they duly did. To his thatched house.

"Are you an silly person?" the guy asked him.

"Apparently", he replied.


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Shame the guy was not a farmer, he could have pointed a shotgun at them and called the police,


Not if he wanted to keep his certificate. A scam like that does not justify threatening the use of deadly force.




Spectric said:


> but then I suppose they would have claimed compensation for stress and he would have got charged as the system now provides scumbags with human rights


No - the *law *provides *people *with rights, and if the right not to be threatened with death by someone who isn't even a victim of a crime is one then that's probably not a bad thing.


----------



## Spectric (8 Jul 2022)

All law abidding people need the right to defend and protect, put your head above the parapet and become an antisocial scumbag then you have to take the consequences, if that entails someone putting you in hospital then maybe lesson learnt. We have become to soft with criminals, our prisons need to be more like the Bangkok prisons where if you survive you will not want to return.


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> All law abidding people need the right to defend and protect,


Proportionately.

Reasonably.

Threatening a delivery scammer with a firearm is neither proportionate nor reasonable.




Spectric said:


> put your head above the parapet and become an antisocial scumbag then you have to take the consequences, if that entails someone putting you in hospital then maybe lesson learnt.


No - you are advocating criminal violence there.

If asked, I _would _have guessed that you were keen on people behaving in law abiding ways.




Spectric said:


> We have become to soft with criminals, our prisons need to be more like the Bangkok prisons where if you survive you will not want to return.


Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)

Do you actually _want _to drive up reoffending rates?


----------



## artie (8 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)


I think we need a source for that?


----------



## Spectric (8 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Would you be interested to learn that your approach is actually the opposite of an effective policy? (Assuming that you would like people to not reoffend?)


Read this book and tell me if after going through this you would re-offend ?






The Damage Done: Twelve Years Of Hell In A Bangkok Prison: Amazon.co.uk: Fellows, W: 9781840182750: Books


Buy The Damage Done: Twelve Years Of Hell In A Bangkok Prison New edition by Fellows, W (ISBN: 9781840182750) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Dictionaries record common usage, not necessarily correct usage.


Common usage is correct usage.
What a word means is what the majority of people who use the word intend it to mean. A minority might disagree but they have been out voted!


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

artie said:


> I think we need a source for that?





https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges











What countries' criminal justice systems have the lowest recidivism rates?


Answer (1 of 9): “Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, currently 20%, with approximately 3,933 offenders in prison, and one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Norway's prisons are renowned for being some of the best and most humane in the world.” Wikipedia Wouldn’t Am...




www.quora.com







http://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Deady_march2014.pdf


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Mass Incarceration in Thailand and Those Who Pay the Price | New Bloom Magazine


Thailand is not widely known as a carceral state, but with the world's fourth-highest incarceration rate, it is one of the easiest places in the world to end up in prison…




newbloommag.net







https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/25230/reduce-recidivism.pdf


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Common usage is correct usage.


A "race to the bottom" philosophy.



Jacob said:


> What a word means is what the majority of people who use the word intend it to mean. A minority might disagree but they have been out voted!


Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage. 

Consider a word defined in the dictionary, it really doesn't matter which, but to pick one as an example, let's pick "giraffe".

So, the dictionary has a definition for it. Here's one:









Definition of GIRAFFE


a large fleet African ruminant mammal (Giraffa camelopardalis) that is the tallest of living quadrupeds and has a very long neck and a short coat with dark blotches separated by pale lines; camelopardalis… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com





If one person says "this is a giraffe"






then they are *wrong*. They just are.

If 2 people say it's a giraffe, are they right?

20 people?

At what point do you think the world should give in and say "OK - forget what the dictionaries have said, you have suddenly become right, that is a giraffe".


And how? How does the world decide that?


And why? How does improve things?

When literacy rates were low, dictionaries effectively non-existent, people were using words inherited from "invaders" whose own culture had been subsumed, language evolved.

But today it isn't like that. There should never be a way in whiich enough ignoramuses can make this a giraffe


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> A "race to the bottom" philosophy.


What would be a "race to the top" philosophy?


morqthana said:


> Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage.
> 
> Consider a word defined in the dictionary, it really doesn't matter which, but to pick one as an example, let's pick "giraffe".
> 
> ...


Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
The meaning of a word is its usage.
If enough people decide to call chairs "giraffes" you will have a problem talking to them about chairs and/or giraffes unless you recognise the usage/change.
What you need to know to understand people is what they mean by a word, however "incorrectly" or however it was used previously. Or for that matter, whatever language they choose to speak.
Cockney rhyming slang is a case in point. Guess what is meant by "a rusty anchor" ("a rusty" for short)!


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.


I believe it does.

We have moved on as a society in so many ways. Medicine is now science based, not superstition and folk remedies. We don't hang witches any more. We (increasingly) use evidence-based policymaking.

We need to double down on saying "no, that's wrong", and stop, as I said, a race to the bottom where all it needs is enough people *to be wrong* for us to abandon what is right.

This is not a question of opinions, or changing societal mores, it is a question of *fact*, and no amount of ignorance, *none whatsoever*, no matter how widespread, can be allowed to override facts.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> I believe it does.
> 
> We have moved on as a society in so many ways. Medicine is now science based, not superstition and folk remedies. We don't hang witches any more. We (increasingly) use evidence-based policymaking.
> 
> ...


The meaning, or usage, of a word is not fixed.








20 words that once meant something very different


Words change meaning all the time — and over time. Language historian Anne Curzan takes a closer look at this phenomenon, and shares some words that used to mean something totally different.



ideas.ted.com


----------



## morqthana (8 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> The meaning, or usage, of a word is not a scientific fact.


It is now.

Those examples you cited date from a time when people were not widely literate, did not receive an education, did not have access to dictionaries.

Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.


----------



## artie (9 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it your position that the better the prisoners are treated, the less likely they are to reoffend?


----------



## morqthana (9 Jul 2022)

There does seem to be a lot of evidence for that.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> It is now.
> 
> Those examples you cited date from a time when people were not widely literate, did not receive an education, did not have access to dictionaries.
> 
> Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.


Words change their meaning all the time. English has an oddity where it is not unusual for words to take on the complete opposite of their original meaning, over a very short time frame. How weird is that? If I were 15, I might say "That's sick!", meaning outstanding, excellent, cool (as in hot), etc.

Here's a list of words that have changed: 20 words that once meant something very different



> The good news: History tells us that we’ll be fine. Words have been changing meaning — sometimes radically — as long as there have been words and speakers to speak them. Here is just a small sampling of words you may not have realized didn’t always mean what they mean today.
> 
> 
> *Nice*: This word used to mean “silly, foolish, simple.” Far from the compliment it is today!
> ...



English doesn't have any language police as other languages do (German and French spring to mind immediately) and this is a good thing. Language is just agreed-upon labels: if you want to change the meaning, or invent a new word to be utterly precise - you crack on. No one is going to tell you it is forbidden, but plenty of old people will complain about how standards have dropped and pronunciation has changed, and how it all used to be so much better "back in my day".





morqthana said:


> Things are different now. We must therefore do things differently.


Are we allowed to invent new words? "Intersectionality" is one that springs to mind as "scientific", and either completely new, or at least a clumsy reworking of an old word with a completely new meaning a. Another favourite from 20 years ago (or is it 30?) is "desertize", with a z: it used to mean "make into a desert", but now is something Americans do to a tank when winning hearts and minds by blowing up weddings.


----------



## morqthana (9 Jul 2022)

Of course we need new words.

What we do not need is a system where if enough people to say "this is a television"







they suddenly become right.

How do you deal with the destruction and loss which your regime creates? The great seething mass of ignorant fools has been redefining "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it has meant for 500 years, so what happens when you need to use the word to mean what it always has, rather than mean "metaphorically"? There was no need to pervert the meaning of "literally", as there already was a word which could have been used, so you've ended up destroying the meaning it had for no gain.

Your approach is one of anti-intellectual, uncultured vandalism.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> .
> Your approach is one of anti-intellectual, uncultured vandalism.


The great thing is that, no matter what you think, believe, demand or require, the great unwashed masses will carry on doing what they have always done: creating their own culture. 

To misquote The Fast Show: Aren't people brilliant!


----------



## Droogs (9 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Of course we need new words.
> 
> What we do not need is a system where if enough people to say "this is a television"
> 
> ...


I'm calling this thing a Stabrabbit


----------



## rafezetter (9 Jul 2022)

Apparently this has been happening a lot in the USA, so if this ever happens to anyone else, don't let the second courier in whatever form they pose, collect the parcel.

Advice in the USA is tell them you'll verify the information for yourself and close the door, if they persist in trying to reclaim the parcel, then take a photograph and contact the police.


----------



## morqthana (9 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The great thing is that, no matter what you think, believe, demand or require, the great unwashed masses will carry on doing what they have always done: creating their own culture.


Indeed they will.

But I don't have to agree that a culture of ignorance destroying a culture of learning is a good thing.


----------



## misterfish (10 Jul 2022)

rafezetter said:


> Apparently this has been happening a lot in the USA, so if this ever happens to anyone else, don't let the second courier in whatever form they pose, collect the parcel.
> 
> Advice in the USA is tell them you'll verify the information for yourself and close the door, if they persist in trying to reclaim the parcel, then take a photograph and contact the police.


That is exactly what I did.

The policeman (local PCSO) was brilliant. Sorted it out with DPD and arranged its return. Came back and showed me the photo on the Sussex police 'wanted' section of the police website. 

Nothing further has happened since my original posting, but it reinforces my gut feeling that this was wrong. 

The problem is that the second 'courier' was at the door almost as soon as the delivery had been made before I'd even looked at the package.
Jeff


----------



## John Brown (10 Jul 2022)

Of course the meaning of words changes over time. I don't think it's always desirable, but it is inevitable. I believe the rate of change has increased enormously over the past few decades as a consequence of the web. One of the problems is that different sections of society adopt these changes at different rates, and you hear older folk complaining that "coloured", for example, was perfectly acceptable when they were young, but now it's frowned upon. Most young people adapt to these changes more quickly, in my experience.
Maybe too quickly, as today's PC term becomes tomorrow's playground taunt.
We also have to take care in areas such as the law, medicine - almost every area, to be honest. If people decide left means right, or live means neutral, we're in big trouble.
I personally deplore the fact that literally now means nothing, and people use imply and infer interchangeably. Fulsome has lost its way, and exponentially means whatever you want it to. But it's pointless to behave like the Scandinavian king with the misspelled name, trying to force back the tide(yes, I know that the story is he was trying to demonstrate the futility of such efforts, just like the cat-in-a-box guy was illustrating how quantum stuff doesn't cut it with cat sized things).
Do you think it'll start happening with spelling? I'm already at the stage where I do a double take if I see "definite" or "separate" spelt correctly. Do you think the future dictionaries will embrace these "alternative" spellings? After all, it's not that long ago that "ize" was the preferred suffix for very many words in British English, but now people react in horror at supposed American influence when "ize" is used. I suppose the ubiquitous spell checkers go some way to safeguarding the spelling, hence "definate" often being rendered as "defiant". Sadly, as far as I know, they don't query the use of literally.


----------



## Wildman (11 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> A "race to the bottom" philosophy.
> 
> 
> Given the (intent, at least) to teach everbody literacy, and the ubiquity of dictionaries, I'm not sure that an approach of "the lowest common denominator of ignorance" is the best way to organise language usage.
> ...


Don't be daft its an Elephant.


----------



## Spectric (11 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> We don't hang witches any more.


I must say I have not seen any recently but maybe a glimpse in Liz Truss and I thought they used to be burnt at the stake rather than hung. Did we not also dunk them, if they drowned they were not a witch otherwise burn them anyway.


----------



## stuart little (11 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The great thing is that, no matter what you think, believe, demand or require, the great unwashed masses will carry on doing what they have always done: creating their own culture.
> 
> To misquote The Fast Show: Aren't people brilliant!



DUHHHH!


----------



## giantbeat (12 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Read this book and tell me if after going through this you would re-offend ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i have read that book, long time ago... thought it was good


----------



## Fergie 307 (12 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> I must say I have not seen any recently but maybe a glimpse in Liz Truss and I thought they used to be burnt at the stake rather than hung. Did we not also dunk them, if they drowned they were not a witch otherwise burn them anyway.


Cant remember the series or the presenter but remember an account of a complaint by a resident in some town or another. Apparently the witch burning took place near their house, and they objected very strongly to this. Not because they had anything against burning witches, just that, presumably owing to the prevalent wind direction, the fat and other spatter spoiled their wall ! Now there is a good case for being a NIMBY


----------

