And a pathetically bad grasp of written English, too....
Oh no, I'm going to be accused of 'hating'
Oh no, I'm going to be accused of 'hating'
Who here has bought Susan's products? serious question
2 of 4
Originally Posted by UnrealityTV:
“And a pathetically bad grasp of written English, too....”
“And a pathetically bad grasp of written English, too....”
Are you averse to giving the evidence for this comment?
Pond's Cold Cream is great for dry skin if you are on a budget, while Dermalogica is a wonderful higher-priced brand.
Originally Posted by Zoltan Smith:
“13 posts and a flounce!
”
“13 posts and a flounce!
”
ROFL!
The bell probably rang for afternoon lessons. Either that or it was Cher Lloyd posting and she had to pop off and get her swag on.
Originally Posted by UnrealityTV:
“And a pathetically bad grasp of written English, too....
Oh no, I'm going to be accused of 'hating'”
“And a pathetically bad grasp of written English, too....
Oh no, I'm going to be accused of 'hating'
”
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“Are you averse to giving the evidence for this comment?”
“Are you averse to giving the evidence for this comment?”
Why should I be? There's ample evidence - just look at all of their postings on the previous page of this thread!
(Fetch the ladder for your high horse, Cressida - I was replying to Zoltan's post immediately before mine, referring to forum user NorthernStyle. Relax, I wasn't criticising the Holy Susan
)
Originally Posted by UnrealityTV:
“Why should I be? There's ample evidence - just look at all of their postings on the previous page of this thread!
(Fetch the ladder for your high horse, Cressida - I was replying to Zoltan's post immediately before mine, referring to forum user NorthernStyle. Relax, I wasn't criticising the Holy Susan)”
“Why should I be? There's ample evidence - just look at all of their postings on the previous page of this thread!
(Fetch the ladder for your high horse, Cressida - I was replying to Zoltan's post immediately before mine, referring to forum user NorthernStyle. Relax, I wasn't criticising the Holy Susan
)”
Okay don't get shirty. I asked a simple question you're not prepared, for information sake to answer, so let's leave it at that.
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“Okay don't get shirty. I asked a simple question you're not prepared, for information sake to answer, so let's leave it at that.”
“Okay don't get shirty. I asked a simple question you're not prepared, for information sake to answer, so let's leave it at that.”
Did you mean you wanted evidence of Northernstyle's writing style/poor grasp of English?
Originally Posted by spannerandpony:
“Did you mean you wanted evidence of Northernstyle's writing style/poor grasp of English?”
“Did you mean you wanted evidence of Northernstyle's writing style/poor grasp of English?
”
I thought it was against T&C's to blast other posters but if it was another poster's writing style that's offened why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“I thought it was against T&C's to blast other posters but if it was another poster's writing style that's offened why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
“I thought it was against T&C's to blast other posters but if it was another poster's writing style that's offened why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
I have no idea; I thought the comment regarding poor grasp of written English was aimed at Northernstyle's use of "u" and "y", i.e. "txt spk". If it was, I completely agree with it; I thought text speak was discouraged on DS.
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“I thought it was against T&C's to blast other posters but if it was another poster's writing style that's offened why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
“I thought it was against T&C's to blast other posters but if it was another poster's writing style that's offened why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
Agree. I read it the same way as you, so I'm not sure why you got such a rude response rather than simply clarifying, as it was not clear.
If text speak is the issue then, yes, it is discouraged, infact I think it is against T&C so can be reported.
Originally Posted by stash22:
“Agree. I read it the same way as you, so I'm not sure why you got such a rude response rather than simply clarifying, as it was not clear.
If text speak is the issue then, yes, it is discouraged, infact I think it is against T&C so can be reported.”
“Agree. I read it the same way as you, so I'm not sure why you got such a rude response rather than simply clarifying, as it was not clear.
If text speak is the issue then, yes, it is discouraged, infact I think it is against T&C so can be reported.”
Thanks
DS can become a war zone at times. 
Originally Posted by Zoltan Smith:
“It is not hating (a odious american slang term from high schools) but analysing claims. Big, big difference.”
“It is not hating (a odious american slang term from high schools) but analysing claims. Big, big difference.”
The problem is that some of your "analysis" is really scraping the barrel. Your repeated insistence that Susan's mother's mortgage might have been only £10 and unless someone could prove it wasn't than no-one could refer to that subject at all, for instance.
Another "analyst" claimed that Susan had diddled her former employer by setting up her own business. This is just silly, and people who come up with guff like that can't really say they are "analysing claims".
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
“why not quote the post the for whom the reply is intended.”
Because mine was immediately after Zoltan's post which I was agreeing with. Unfortunately it just happened to be the one that took the thread to the next page, but I thought most people would have had enough basic common sense to understand that's who I was replying to.
Conversely, why on earth would anyone interpret it as a completely spurious (and totally unrelated to anything said previously in the thread) comment about Susan's use of written English? It's a bit of a leap, isn't it? To me that just highlights the scary levels of paranoia that the disciples of The Beloved St Susan have reached on this forum!
Originally Posted by UnrealityTV:
“Because mine was immediately after Zoltan's post which I was agreeing with. Unfortunately it just happened to be the one that took the thread to the next page, but I thought most people would have had enough basic common sense to understand that's who I was replying to.
:”
“Because mine was immediately after Zoltan's post which I was agreeing with. Unfortunately it just happened to be the one that took the thread to the next page, but I thought most people would have had enough basic common sense to understand that's who I was replying to.
:”
It’s not my common sense that’s at issue.
Quote:
“Conversely, why on earth would anyone interpret it as a completely spurious (and totally unrelated to anything said previously in the thread) comment about Susan's use of written English? It's a bit of a leap, isn't it? To me that just highlights the scary levels of paranoia that the disciples of The Beloved St Susan have reached on this forum! :eek”
“Conversely, why on earth would anyone interpret it as a completely spurious (and totally unrelated to anything said previously in the thread) comment about Susan's use of written English? It's a bit of a leap, isn't it? To me that just highlights the scary levels of paranoia that the disciples of The Beloved St Susan have reached on this forum! :eek”
You flatter yourself if you think I know who anyone is replying to whom or who frequent the same threads. Any levels of paranoia you’ve encountered are for you to resolve for yourself although asking the question ‘Are you fond of Susan?’ would certainly be one lacking in common sense, attached or unattached.
Originally Posted by DavetheScot:
“The problem is that some of your "analysis" is really scraping the barrel. Your repeated insistence that Susan's mother's mortgage might have been only £10 and unless someone could prove it wasn't than no-one could refer to that subject at all, for instance.
snip”
“The problem is that some of your "analysis" is really scraping the barrel. Your repeated insistence that Susan's mother's mortgage might have been only £10 and unless someone could prove it wasn't than no-one could refer to that subject at all, for instance.
snip”
If you are going to repeatedly tell viewers that she paid her mums mortgage off with the intention of making it out to be a great thing and an example of how successful her business is then unless you clarify how much it was then it is a moot point and misleading. many people on here have used this fact as a means to prove how successful susan is..
how many people would have used this if the mortgage was £10? (answer none). DO we know it was not £10> (answer no)
So unless we know what the figure was it should not be used.
It is a simple concept and I am amazed that anyone can argue against it.
Originally Posted by Zoltan Smith:
“If you are going to repeatedly tell viewers that she paid her mums mortgage off with the intention of making it out to be a great thing and an example of how successful her business is then unless you clarify how much it was then it is a moot point and misleading. many people on here have used this fact as a means to prove how successful susan is..
how many people would have used this if the mortgage was £10? (answer none). DO we know it was not £10> (answer no)
So unless we know what the figure was it should not be used.
It is a simple concept and I am amazed that anyone can argue against it.”
“If you are going to repeatedly tell viewers that she paid her mums mortgage off with the intention of making it out to be a great thing and an example of how successful her business is then unless you clarify how much it was then it is a moot point and misleading. many people on here have used this fact as a means to prove how successful susan is..
how many people would have used this if the mortgage was £10? (answer none). DO we know it was not £10> (answer no)
So unless we know what the figure was it should not be used.
It is a simple concept and I am amazed that anyone can argue against it.”
Ok I will now amaze you :
One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews
LAS seemed to be impressed by her having done so throughout the entire length of the programme and it would not seem logical for him to have been impressed by an amount of 10 pounds
if the BBC knew it was a stupidly small amount that would probably have brought it up somewhere during the process to show her to be a fantistist over this.
as I stated before I dont believe that Susan has personally harmed you and I dont know why you should spend time trying to prove that she is/was being dishonest.
I dont know whether she is dishonest but most certainly would not take your word for it as I dont believe you have shown anything other than spite and all round general nastiness when talking about Susan throughout the whole length of the programme
You wont hear from for a while now as I will be unable to post for a while but dont take this as you having influenced me in anyway other than to generally question the pleasure some seem to get from posting anonymous spiteful posts about someone how has never personally harmed them
Originally Posted by shefair:
“Ok I will now amaze you :
One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews
LAS seemed to be impressed by her having done so throughout the entire length of the programme and it would not seem logical for him to have been impressed by an amount of 10 pounds
if the BBC knew it was a stupidly small amount that would probably have brought it up somewhere during the process to show her to be a fantistist over this.
as I stated before I dont believe that Susan has personally harmed you and I dont know why you should spend time trying to prove that she is/was being dishonest.
I dont know whether she is dishonest but most certainly would not take your word for it as I dont believe you have shown anything other than spite and all round general nastiness when talking about Susan throughout the whole length of the programme
You wont hear from for a while now as I will be unable to post for a while but dont take this as you having influenced me in anyway other than to generally question the pleasure some seem to get from posting anonymous spiteful posts about someone how has never personally harmed them”
“Ok I will now amaze you :
One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews
LAS seemed to be impressed by her having done so throughout the entire length of the programme and it would not seem logical for him to have been impressed by an amount of 10 pounds
if the BBC knew it was a stupidly small amount that would probably have brought it up somewhere during the process to show her to be a fantistist over this.
as I stated before I dont believe that Susan has personally harmed you and I dont know why you should spend time trying to prove that she is/was being dishonest.
I dont know whether she is dishonest but most certainly would not take your word for it as I dont believe you have shown anything other than spite and all round general nastiness when talking about Susan throughout the whole length of the programme
You wont hear from for a while now as I will be unable to post for a while but dont take this as you having influenced me in anyway other than to generally question the pleasure some seem to get from posting anonymous spiteful posts about someone how has never personally harmed them”
"One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews"
The longest section shown with Susan was the part where she was told she was full of BS and then the chap went through her financials and took them apart as arrant fantasy?
what show were you watching?
Originally Posted by Zoltan Smith:
“"One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews"
The longest section shown with Susan was the part where she was told she was full of BS and then the chap went through her financials and took them apart as arrant fantasy?
what show were you watching?”
“"One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews"
The longest section shown with Susan was the part where she was told she was full of BS and then the chap went through her financials and took them apart as arrant fantasy?
what show were you watching?”
24 seconds in:
http://tellymix.co.uk/2011/videos/37...ws-teaser.html
Originally Posted by Cressida:
“It’s not my common sense that’s at issue.
You flatter yourself if you think I know who anyone is replying to whom or who frequent the same threads. Any levels of paranoia you’ve encountered are for you to resolve for yourself although asking the question ‘Are you fond of Susan?’ would certainly be one lacking in common sense, attached or unattached.”
“It’s not my common sense that’s at issue.
You flatter yourself if you think I know who anyone is replying to whom or who frequent the same threads. Any levels of paranoia you’ve encountered are for you to resolve for yourself although asking the question ‘Are you fond of Susan?’ would certainly be one lacking in common sense, attached or unattached.
”
From paranoia to complete gibberish - how I love these forums
Originally Posted by UnrealityTV:
“From paranoia to complete gibberish - how I love these forums”
“From paranoia to complete gibberish - how I love these forums
”
Aren't you the one who's adroit?
Originally Posted by ambermum:
“I am asking because the idea of 100% natural ingredients appeals to me. I've tried brands like Clinique and Clarins and they have all made my skin worse. She has gorgeous skin and am tempted to buy a couple of products. Was wondering how anyone who had bought from her website found the products to be? Thanks x”
“I am asking because the idea of 100% natural ingredients appeals to me. I've tried brands like Clinique and Clarins and they have all made my skin worse. She has gorgeous skin and am tempted to buy a couple of products. Was wondering how anyone who had bought from her website found the products to be? Thanks x”
People should understand that 100% natural origin, which is what Tropic ingredients are, does not mean 100% natural. For instance Vitamin E (tocopherol). It does not occur in its pure form anywhere in nature. It has to be manufactured and there is nothing natural about this process.
Does the photo of vitamin E pellets that Susan has on her site look natural? By the way, I doubt she's using these in her recipes since these softgel supplements clearly contain gelatine, i.e., they're not vegetarian, let alone vegan. But they look good on the photo. The actual Vitamin E used in the recipes is most likely the food additive E306 - tocopherols (there are also E307, E308, and E309 but these are 100% synthetic). E306 has a natural origin, usually soybean. The raw material used for the production of tocopherols is a by-product of vegetable oil refining, called vegetable oil deodorised distillate, and the production process involves a combination of several purification and distillation steps. Chemicals used during this process include organic solvents such as acetonitrile, isopropyl alcohol and acetone. Obviously there's nothing wrong with it, after all it's a food additive but I wouldn't call it 100% natural.
I don't understand what's all the fuss about 100% natural anyway. Botulinum toxin is 100% natural, yet it's the most powerful poison known to man. Funnily enough, Botox is 100% natural origin cosmetic product made of this very botulinum toxin.
After the farce with the logo, Susan can never claim to be 100% ethical.
If she couldn't be arsed paying some poor sod $200 on a design website where all the comments, the withdrawal and the site's embarrassment & awareness of the time the designer put into doing all the suggested tweaks ("make it more like Liz Earle's!", "No, MORE!", or wtte) are there to be seen by all; then what is she like with other people & potential or actual suppliers?
Liz Earle takes a Fair Trade approach to sourcing her ingredients - would that even cross Susan's radar?
If she couldn't be arsed paying some poor sod $200 on a design website where all the comments, the withdrawal and the site's embarrassment & awareness of the time the designer put into doing all the suggested tweaks ("make it more like Liz Earle's!", "No, MORE!", or wtte
) are there to be seen by all; then what is she like with other people & potential or actual suppliers? Liz Earle takes a Fair Trade approach to sourcing her ingredients - would that even cross Susan's radar?
Originally Posted by thefoxmistress:
“Liz Earle takes a Fair Trade approach to sourcing her ingredients - would that even cross Susan's radar?”
“Liz Earle takes a Fair Trade approach to sourcing her ingredients - would that even cross Susan's radar?”
It ought to Foxy, otherwise
that's so unfair.
Originally Posted by shefair:
“Ok I will now amaze you :
One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews
LAS seemed to be impressed by her having done so throughout the entire length of the programme and it would not seem logical for him to have been impressed by an amount of 10 pounds
if the BBC knew it was a stupidly small amount that would probably have brought it up somewhere during the process to show her to be a fantistist over this.
as I stated before I dont believe that Susan has personally harmed you and I dont know why you should spend time trying to prove that she is/was being dishonest.
I dont know whether she is dishonest but most certainly would not take your word for it as I dont believe you have shown anything other than spite and all round general nastiness when talking about Susan throughout the whole length of the programme
You wont hear from for a while now as I will be unable to post for a while but dont take this as you having influenced me in anyway other than to generally question the pleasure some seem to get from posting anonymous spiteful posts about someone how has never personally harmed them”
“Ok I will now amaze you :
One of the other points that you have failed to grasp is that she was not shown to be talking rubbish about this in her interviews
LAS seemed to be impressed by her having done so throughout the entire length of the programme and it would not seem logical for him to have been impressed by an amount of 10 pounds
if the BBC knew it was a stupidly small amount that would probably have brought it up somewhere during the process to show her to be a fantistist over this.
as I stated before I dont believe that Susan has personally harmed you and I dont know why you should spend time trying to prove that she is/was being dishonest.
I dont know whether she is dishonest but most certainly would not take your word for it as I dont believe you have shown anything other than spite and all round general nastiness when talking about Susan throughout the whole length of the programme
You wont hear from for a while now as I will be unable to post for a while but dont take this as you having influenced me in anyway other than to generally question the pleasure some seem to get from posting anonymous spiteful posts about someone how has never personally harmed them”
zoltan is just an old fashioned hater. Just like the rest of them on here. What draws the haters together is fanboyism. Their fave candidates have probably been at odds with susan. Even highly intelligent folk like brangdon have lost their way because susan and zoe didnt get along and he was a massive fan of zoe.
The rest however are just simple minded jealous folks with nothing to in their lives probably. all they can do is rant on a forum. In the end it doesnt really matter. so dont take their posts seriously
2 of 4
