'Giving >100%'

What do we read into that term?

a. I/we will be cheating e.g. drug abuse, secretly exceeding the wage cap etc.?
b. Admitting that I/we were not giving 100% previously but scared to say so?
c. I/we are talking Love sacks.

Rarely can the >100% term be used properly unless its a comparison with a previous standard. e.g. 'we are playing 110% compared to last season'

Drugs, got to be drugs.



Really, it means performing above your supposed abilities, which by and large happens naturally in rugby.

It's just inflation.

These days you can probably get disqualifed for only putting in 110%.

Port to be honest i tend to take it as a load of tosh, or i have been lazy but don't wanna admit it.

I hate hearing people talk about giving 110%, but what is worse is I said to someone before that our workload is up by 200% and he told me I was talking bulldung as there is 100% is as big as you can get!

Half penny running the width of the pitch and making a try saving tackle by using his head as a speedbump at 'Twickers' was 'giving 100%'

It depends in what context you mean. If we're talking saleswise, we're comparing to a previous measurement and not to the best of anyone's ability ie sales are up 300% from last term. If Chris Ashton scores 30 or 40 tries this coming season then he'll obviously be adjudged to be up by a huge percentage from last season.

In terms of what we can or can't do, 100% cannot be bypassed without the aid of some substance. Somebody who plays consistently well, those who are hailed as the best of the best now or in the past can be commended for regularly playing to 100% of their ability. It's not so much having the talent as having the mindset to make the very best of that talent.

I always thought Henson gave 110%

on that Brits Bingo advert.

munkian wrote:Half penny running the width of the pitch and making a try saving tackle by using his head as a speedbump at 'Twickers' was 'giving 100%'

I disagree. Had he given 100% he'd have used his arms to bring him down and sweep that controversy of the would-be try under the carpet. As it is he only delayed him for JD2 and therefore gave closer to 80-90 %

I concur, lazy rugby

>100%

I know this one, it was in the Da Vinci puzzle

> is obviously the compass denoting the Masons
100 in a simple binary numeral system represents the number 4
The % sign given the Masonic influence indicates the scales for balance

Now that we have the key, we can translate the code thus:

I believe this to be a prophesy. It is obvious that master granite chiseller Brian O’Driscoll will captain the Lions on his fourth tour to a series win. Completing the circle and restoring balance to the universe.

Or it could be a recipe for the perfect 4 minute boiled egg.

The 'giving 110%' thing is baffling.

Can we get Price Waterhouse to do a report explaining it?

They can also explain why every rugby player and pundit started saying 'alluded to' in the wrong context after Simon Taylor said it on The Weakest Link.

Worth a half million pound consultancy fee any day of the week.

Could they also explain why public figures who are accused of this or that make public statements where they say they 'refute' the allegations, when what they mean is that they deny them?

Refute- To prove something wrong
Deny- To state that something is wrong (without having proved so yet)

While we're on the topic of words creeping towards long-term misinterpretation, could the press please stop obscuring and contorting the word "sceptic" by constantly referring to the Conservatives as "Eurosceptics"? To be sceptical is to not know. I'm ultimately sceptical on religion, while I'm inclined to side with science I'm forced to acknowledge that everything I see as reality could theoretically be an illusion (even if it is a 0.000001% chance) with a higher power behind the curtain pulling the strings. In other words I acknowledge the possible existence of a "God". Scepticism is not taking a side and having the sense to admit that there's some things you don't and maybe can't know. The C's certainly don't match this definition, they certainly know what they want and that's out of Europe. The scoundrels are trying to hijack a historical term and spit in the face of the sensible philosophers who used it correctly. People are generally so overzealous in the present day that they pretend to know many things which they don't

Sorry for that massive jump in topic, I just couldn't hold that in anymore. Where were we? It's impossible to be over 100% in regards to yourself but it is compared to past performances.

If that makes you angry, Knowsit, you should have a look at what the original Cynics were about.

The thing is though, words change their 'meaning' over time so if they tend to get used to 'mean' something else then eventually they become accepted.

The English language (and other languages, I'm sure) is full of 'em!

Ironically it reflects an inability to 'conserve' words over a period of time in relation to the Conservatives.

What term would replace "Scepticism" if it became fully converted to the negative meaning? None is what I fear. In losing the original definition we might lose the concept, the ability to be sceptical and therefore become that bit more narrow-minded. Maybe there won't be a middle ground in future, it'll be a case of blindly picking a side and whatever repercussions that entails. That is why I can't stand this sort of thing, in adding terms to the main two sides of the argument you're preventing those terms from taking a field of their own and therefore preventing future generations from broadening their minds with these terms.

Sorry for the excessive rambling, I'll try stopping now

sugarNspikes wrote:The thing is though, words change their 'meaning' over time so if they tend to get used to 'mean' something else then eventually they become accepted.

The English language (and other languages, I'm sure) is full of 'em!

Mathematics follow the permanent, unchangeable physical rules of the universe. Maths teachers tend to dislike/despise these terms like >100% as it leads to difficulties in understanding of kids learning about percentages in their multitude of variations. I speak from experience.

How many times do you hear people making claims like 'I did more than my best'? Almost never - because they can't. Just like they can't give 110%. They can give 10% more than ever though.

That's not a change of language - it's at best ignorance.

Submachine wrote:>100%

I know this one, it was in the Da Vinci puzzle

> is obviously the compass denoting the Masons
100 in a simple binary numeral system represents the number 4
The % sign given the Masonic influence indicates the scales for balance

Now that we have the key, we can translate the code thus:

I believe this to be a prophesy. It is obvious that master granite chiseller Brian O’Driscoll will captain the Lions on his fourth tour to a series win. Completing the circle and restoring balance to the universe.

Or it could be a recipe for the perfect 4 minute boiled egg.

I love you

Portnoy wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:The thing is though, words change their 'meaning' over time so if they tend to get used to 'mean' something else then eventually they become accepted.

The English language (and other languages, I'm sure) is full of 'em!

Mathematics follow the permanent, unchangeable physical rules of the universe. Maths teachers tend to dislike/despise these terms like >100% as it leads to difficulties in understanding of kids learning about percentages in their multitude of variations. I speak from experience.

How many times do you hear people making claims like 'I did more than my best'? Almost never - because they can't. Just like they can't give 110%. They can give 10% more than ever though.

That's not a change of language - it's at best ignorance.

Agreed in principle.

If one day during a game George North took possession but instead of running launched himself up out of the stadium and flew to the moon, coming back down to score six tries simultaneously, then I'd have to say by the laws of physics he's put in over 100%. Until that happens he'll never exceed 100% though.

Portnoy wrote:

sugarNspikes wrote:The thing is though, words change their 'meaning' over time so if they tend to get used to 'mean' something else then eventually they become accepted.

The English language (and other languages, I'm sure) is full of 'em!

Mathematics follow the permanent, unchangeable physical rules of the universe. Maths teachers tend to dislike/despise these terms like >100% as it leads to difficulties in understanding of kids learning about percentages in their multitude of variations. I speak from experience.

How many times do you hear people making claims like 'I did more than my best'? Almost never - because they can't. Just like they can't give 110%. They can give 10% more than ever though.

That's not a change of language - it's at best ignorance.

I think we'd gone off on a tangerine with the language thing.

I agree with 70% of what you say, Portnoy. The other 40% is open to conjecture.

You know there's a banned substance list in most sports?

There should be a banned cliche list too.

Anyone caught saying 'I gave it a hundred and ten percent out there' or 'which French side will turn up?' or 'dog leg defence' or 'earn the right to go wide' gets slapped with a mandatory lifetime ban. No appeals.

It's the only way we'll clean up the game.

Casartelli wrote:You know there's a banned substance list in most sports?

There should be a banned cliche list too.

Anyone caught saying 'I gave it a hundred and ten percent out there' or 'which French side will turn up?' or 'dog leg defence' or 'earn the right to go wide' gets slapped with a mandatory lifetime ban. No appeals.

It's the only way we'll clean up the game.

You do that and your inviting more people to do a Jiffy and make up his own 'One Stamp, Two Stamps... Book Of Stamps, that'll teach him to lay-over'.

Knowsit17 wrote:Ironically it reflects an inability to 'conserve' words over a period of time in relation to the Conservatives.

What term would replace "Scepticism" if it became fully converted to the negative meaning? None is what I fear. In losing the original definition we might lose the concept, the ability to be sceptical and therefore become that bit more narrow-minded. Maybe there won't be a middle ground in future, it'll be a case of blindly picking a side and whatever repercussions that entails. That is why I can't stand this sort of thing, in adding terms to the main two sides of the argument you're preventing those terms from taking a field of their own and therefore preventing future generations from broadening their minds with these terms.

Sorry for the excessive rambling, I'll try stopping now

Interesting thought there.
However what you will find is that language will evolve to fill the void.
So the singular thee got dropped over the years in favour of the original plural form you. Eventually you became the singular form and there was no plural. Until yous came along. Cool eh! note kiwi rising inflection at the end to indicate friendliness.