# It's a rip-off!



## bankrupt (21 Dec 2006)

As the previous thread on the topic has been deleted and there has been a long-running controversy over the phrase "rip-off" on AAM I thought it might be a good idea to post a quick summary.

Many amongst us use the phrase "rip-off" to mean over-priced, excessively expensive in certain contexts.

Some have insisted that a "rip-off" *must* be a deceitful or fraudulent act, but now agree that this position is incorrect.  The simple reason for this is that the phrase is itself slang and does not have a single fixed meaning.  ClubMan illustrated this point well by saying that he now defines "rip-off" as a winged golden unicorn, of course if he should somehow manage to get this adopted by enough people then the term _will_ share this meaning.   Slang terms, by definition, do not have a fixed definition.

Some examples:

If a pub were to charge €20 for a pint (while also making clear that this would be the charge) it could be deemed to be a "rip-off."  In this instance there is no suggestion of fraud or deceit.  Clearly it is not possible to exactly define what constitutes a "rip-off" with this definition, context is everything.  C'est la vie; it is similarly difficult to exactly define "value," and "expensive."

If a pub were to advertise pints for €5 and charge €6 this would also be a rip-off but clearly this is a fraudulent transaction.

This debate has raged back and forth for a couple of years now but we finally appear to have consensus.  The debate on whether or not Ireland has a "rip-off" culture is a separate discussion that will no doubt continue ad infinitum.

Happy Christmas (and yes, it is a slow day at the office.)


----------



## ClubMan (21 Dec 2006)

bankrupt said:


> Happy Christmas (and yes, it is a slow day at the office.)


You mean you're ripping your employer off?


> ClubMan illustrated this point well by saying that he now defines "rip-off" as a winged golden unicorn


I never said a winged or golden unicorn. Just a standard non flight enabled white one. I think you're getting confused with Pegasus.


----------



## bankrupt (21 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> You mean you're ripping your employer off?



Perhaps, not sure in which sense of the term though ;-)



> I never said a winged or golden unicorn. Just a standard one.


I'm sure you said golden, let's just check with the search facility will we?  Oh, wait...


----------



## Gabriel (21 Dec 2006)

bankrupt said:


> Many amongst us use the phrase "rip-off" to mean over-priced, excessively expensive in certain contexts.



This is indeed a meaningful use of the phrase. Unfortunately some people still don't understand both the intricacies of the modern english language and the context of the brash new money-rich Irish culture. *This* context is where a lot of this blame is directed..and hence the phrase.

Ultimately...to argue with _one person_ the meaning of a particular phrase is understandable...but to argue with many people the use of the same phrase is not. Once many people take a phrase on it evolves around that particular 'context'. This is the basis of most language evolution.

For instance I personally take great insult where people say...just choose not to but there and shop elsewhere! This is fine if you're standing in Brown Thomas where a pair of socks might cost €40...but the same does not apply where you're standing in a convenience store and to shop around might mean to travel several miles to a competitor. This is where (unfortunately) the free market often fails us. It also harps back to the 'nouveau riche' as mentioned earlier. Shops expect that this new class of Irish people will pay whatever for the goods or service on offer...often in the knowledge that to shop elsewhere is just too much hassle. 

This to me is where the argument against the modern term "rip-off" falls over. If you don't get this...then you just don't get it!


----------



## ClubMan (21 Dec 2006)

Gabriel said:


> For instance I personally take great insult where people say...just choose not to but there and shop elsewhere!


Why on earth do you take great insult when somebody recommends that you shop around?


> Shops expect that this new class of Irish people will pay whatever for the goods or service on offer...often in the knowledge that to shop elsewhere is just too much hassle.


And sometimes they do. So what? They may be paying a premium for convenience but it's the retailer's prerogative to charge what they like and the consumer's to decide what price they are willing to pay in any given situation.


> This to me is where the argument against the modern term "rip-off" falls over. If you don't get this...then you just don't get it!


I don't get it. If a shop wants to charge €40 for socks (or whatever) then that's their business. Personally I would not pay it but somebody else might. It's not a rip off unless they advertise them at, say, €4 but surreptitiously try to charge €40 at the till.


----------



## bankrupt (21 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> Often because they consider that misuse of the term in such situations dilutes it and gets in the way of identifying and tackling *real* rip-offs.


 
Of course, now we are all in agreement that a rip-off that is merely expensive is also a "real" rip-off.


----------



## bankrupt (21 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> I don't get it. If a shop wants to charge €40 for socks (or whatever) then that's their business. Personally I would not pay it but somebody else might. It's not a rip off unless they advertise them at, say, €4 but surreptitiously try to charge €40 at the till.


 
Oh ClubMan!  It is a rip-off in the other sense of the word!  I thought we had agreed this?

Let's of course assume that €40 would be extremely poor value for this pair of socks.


----------



## bankrupt (22 Dec 2006)

A few further musings on the topic.

How do others use this term?  I find that I might say, for example, "that place is a rip-off" to mean it is expensive.  However, if I say "that guy/place ripped me off" there is an implication of fraud.  I've also been checking with other people to see how they use it, out of 6 people, all shared this definition, all having grown up on the Southside of Dublin.  Is there a North/South Dublin divide?   Can anyone from outside of the capital comment?


----------



## ajapale (22 Dec 2006)

If I dont want to buy my 7yo daughter something I tell her its a "rip-off" and she accepts this without question. Somehow I dont this tactic is going to work for much longer!


----------



## damson (22 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> More than one person has challenged what they consider the mistaken attributation of the term rip-off to straightforward cases of high prices.


 Sure. Even two is more than one. But my perception from browsing this site is that _many, many_ more people accept the term rip-off has now acquired multiple meanings, one of which is an unreasonably high price, perhaps with an element of taking advantage of people, where going elsewhere would be inconvenient.

We could run a poll.

*Ripoff:*

A - Has _one acceptable meaning only_, i.e. someone tries to charge a higher price than advertised/stated for an item. A high price can not be a ripoff unless the item in question has been fraudulently advertised at a lower price.

B - Has _two meanings only_, i.e. a fraudulent price (as in A above), and a standard, non-flight-enabled, white unicorn.

C - Has _multiple_ meanings, _including_ an unreasonably high price.

D - Other (please specify).

My vote goes to:
C - Has _multiple_ meanings, _including_ an unreasonably high price.

*Anyone else?*

(Remember, you don't have to vote for B just because you like unicorns! They could fit into definition C too.)


----------



## cambazola (22 Dec 2006)

C.


----------



## SineWave (22 Dec 2006)

Used to be a C up until 2 years ago. Now a strong *A*.


----------



## bankrupt (22 Dec 2006)

SineWave said:


> Used to be a C up until 2 years ago. Now a strong *A*.


 
Very interesting SW, why the change?


----------



## Gabriel (22 Dec 2006)

C....quite clearly!


----------



## SineWave (22 Dec 2006)

Kids were probably the catalyst which made me more aware of my finances and costs of goods and services. 
Once there is transparency of the goods and/or service to be delivered along with a defined price and choice of supply, I can't consider it a rip-off.

Prior to this, I would purchase goods and/or services without clear detail and if I something was below my expectation or above the price I guessed it would be, I would also classify it as a rip-off.

I now categorise "rip-off" as being mis-information on description, price, goods or service and my perceived high costs of something being in the category of "bad-value".

Now I barely ever have to classify something as a rip-off, and with help of AAM contributors, rarely ending up getting bad-value!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Dec 2006)

Bankrupt said



> Some have insisted that a "rip-off" *must* be a deceitful or fraudulent act, but now agree that this position is incorrect.


It is still very clear to me that those of us who want to communicate with precision, those of us who want to be understood, need to have a word which implies fraud. To me, "rip-off" is that word. If others choose to use it to mean expensive or to mean a unicorn, then they are abusing the word. 

If the begrudgers want to do down all Irish business by describing it as a rip-off, then they abusing the word with intent. If their high profile media campaign gets the majority of people to believe in a new meaning, I still think that we should fight to keep the original meaning. 

I assume that everyone agrees that the expression "rip-off" includes the meaning of fraud. Fraud is a crime. It is morally reprehensible. So it is wrong to extend the meaning of a "criminal" word to something which does not involve fraud or crime. 

If someone tells me that Pub X is a rip-off, I will assume that they have been charged more than the prices on display or that they have been intentionally short-changed and I will think less of the pub as a result. If someone tells me that Cafe en Seine manages to have people queuing up outside to pay €6 a pint, I will admire the pub for its marketing savvy. 

Humpty Dumpty said something along the following lines: "A word means what I choose it to mean - no more and no less". Sometimes I think that Bankrupt and the others would be more comfortable living in Wonderland where they could use words without worrying about their meaning. 

 If a word has a distinct and useful meaning, particularly if it implies criminal activity, then its meaning should be confined to that use. Attempts to extend the use suggest sloppy use of English or else some underhand motive. 

If people insist on extending "rip-off" to mean expensive, they should clarify that they are using this new meaning of the word. Otherwise, those of us who understand the true meaning of the word will have to ask them to clarify what they mean. This interferes with clear communication. 

So why not agree in future to describe Ireland and certain shops as expensive and to describe those shops which defraud people as rip-offs? If we agree this, then we can have a more meaningful analysis of the cost of living in Ireland and why it is expensive. And the Office of Consumer Affairs will be able to identify the rip-off merchants and have them jailed.



Brendan


----------



## bankrupt (23 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> It is still very clear to me that those of us who want to communicate with precision, those of us who want to be understood, need to have a word which implies fraud. To me, "rip-off" is that word. If others choose to use it to mean expensive or to mean a unicorn, then they are abusing the word.


 
Hi Brendan,

You are free to insist Canute-like that "rip-off" cannot mean expensive but the *fact *is that its meaning has changed to include that meaning. If you need to communicate with precision this is not the term to use, "fraud" would be more appropriate. You might argue that you should never use slang if you need precision.



> If someone tells me that Pub X is a rip-off, I will assume that they have been charged more than the prices on display or that they have been intentionally short-changed and I will think less of the pub as a result. If someone tells me that Cafe en Seine manages to have people queuing up outside to pay €6 a pint, I will admire the pub for its marketing savvy.


 
But the person telling you this may be using the term in the other sense of the word, why insist that they mean something other than what they intend? As an analogy, if someone told you they were gay, would you insist they meant "happy?" As an exercise to the reader, what would have been meant by "gay" 100 years ago and what would have been meant last week? Further, rip-off, being slang is even more subject to this change in meaning than other words.



> Humpty Dumpty said something along the following lines: "A word means what I choose it to mean - no more and no less". Sometimes I think that Bankrupt and the others would be more comfortable living in Wonderland where they could use words without worrying about their meaning.


 
I am merely pointing that the meaning has changed, the language has moved on, clearly you have not. I could pick 100s of words from the dictionary that have changed meaning over the last 100 years. Your use of the Humpty-Dumpty quote shows that you have completely misunderstood the point.

I do not have some underhand intention in pointing out this simple point and it is far from "sloppy," (indeed, it is your thinking that is sloppy here). As I pointed out above the whole "rip-off" Ireland debate is an entirely separate discussion and I suspect we substantially agree that there is not a "rip-off" culture in the country.

My point is a pedantic one about the current use of language, the logic is clear, you have not disproved it.


----------



## bankrupt (23 Dec 2006)

How about this Brendan:

Would you accept the Oxford English Dictionary as the ultimate arbiter of language meaning?

If so, I will bet you €500 that the term "rip-off" will appear in the OED within 5 years with an additional meaning of excessively expensive or over-priced, bad-value (we would have to agree on some flexibility here as I cannot know the exact wording.) Loser to pay the money to a charity of the other's choice.

In the spirit of Christmas, I will donate €50 to a charity of your choice if you don't want to accept this bet but are prepared to acknowledge that my argument above is correct.


----------



## Gordanus (23 Dec 2006)

I'd have to go with C in the poll.  Slang is defined by its use.   A shop charging €40 for socks is expensive, but not a rip-off UNLESS you have nowhere else to buy socks, so the meaning would include unreasonable profits or profiteering. eh, think Banks until a few years ago.


----------



## Guest127 (23 Dec 2006)

customers might well be aware of the price of an item and still purchase. if then asked their opinion on the price they might well use the term rip off. can be referring to drinks, flights, stamp duty on houses, price of cars, etc etc. its just a general term taken to mean that customers think the items are being charged for at a premium rate. not generally taken to mean fraud. more taken to mean being taken advanage of. that's my opinion anyway.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Dec 2006)

Bankrupt potter means reverse forward "rip-off". Snow cannot warm Humpty Dumpty. Minority splash the rules? An infinite number of "kangaroos" Unicorn says so, it must be wrong. Clarity of meaningless helps the printer. 


Brendan


----------



## Murt10 (23 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> It is still very clear to me that those of us who want to communicate with precision, those of us who want to be understood, need to have a word which implies fraud. To me, "rip-off" is that word. If others choose to use it to mean expensive or to mean a unicorn, then they are abusing the word...
> 
> I assume that everyone agrees that the expression "rip-off" includes the meaning of fraud. Fraud is a crime. It is morally reprehensible. So it is wrong to extend the meaning of a "criminal" word to something which does not involve fraud or crime. ....
> 
> ...



I totally disagree with you on this one. 

Chambers Dictionary defines rip-off 

"rip-off noun 
1 an act or instance of stealing from someone, or cheating or defrauding them, etc. 
2 an item which is outrageously overpriced."

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=rip+off&title=21st


Collins gives 5 definitions of a rip off. 4 of them (including cheating)  are described as slang


"rip off verb 
1.  (transitive) to tear violently or roughly (from) 
2.  (adverb) (Slang) to steal from or cheat (someone) rip-off 
3. noun  (Slang) an article or articles stolen 
4.  (Slang) a grossly overpriced article 
5.  (Slang) the act of stealing or cheating "

[broken link removed]


One dictionary defines rip off as "an item which is outrageously overpriced" and the other defines it as "a grossly overpriced article". Therefore those of us who use it in this context are not conferring a new meaning on the word, or abusing the word, we are just using it in the manner and context in which it is defined in the dictionary. 



Murt


----------



## DrMoriarty (23 Dec 2006)

Don't you mean 'the manner and context _in_ which it is defined'?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> Humpty Dumpty said something along the following lines: "A word means what I choose it to mean - no more and no less".


I thought that it was one of the characters (_The [Mad] Hatter _or _The Queen of Hearts _perhaps?) from _Alice in Wonderland_? Are you sure that you're not ripping off _Lewis Carroll_ through misattribution of the phrase?


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> Bankrupt potter means reverse forward "rip-off". Snow cannot warm Humpty Dumpty. Minority splash the rules? An infinite number of "kangaroos" Unicorn says so, it must be wrong. Clarity of meaningless helps the printer.


 
You won't engage, I'll up the ante - €1000 to the charity of your choice if the OED does not include an "over-priced" definition within *2* years. We can all post nonsense, you have have not been able to refute any of my basic arguments.

The €50 offer stands.

You obviously believe that you are right, why not take advantage of my idiocy to give €1000 to a charity of your choice?
While you're at it, why not explain the dictionary definitions given by Murt10 above? Are these lexicographers "sloppy?"  even ClubMan has conceded the point, I'm surprised anyone has difficulty with it.

Perhaps you think that the OED is less qualified to pronouce on the meaning of a word than you?


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> I thought that it was one of the characters (_The [Mad] Hatter _or _The Queen of Hearts _perhaps?) from _Alice in Wonderland_? Are you sure that you're not ripping off _Lewis Carroll_ through misattribution of the phrase?


 
No, he's OK - He appears in "through the looking glass." even I knew that.


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

DrMoriarty said:


> Don't you mean 'the manner and context _in_ which it is defined'?


 
Funny _and_ apt DrM. Context is All.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Dec 2006)

Bankrupt

You are missing my point and cofusing the matter with this betting stuff.

Why do you insist on using an imprecise word? Does it matter that the majority of users express themselves badly? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well? 

If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using.  It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey fraud and "exceedingly expensive" to mean, well, exceedingly expensive. 

The dictionary definitions do reflect the misuse of the word. Perhaps the OED will follow suit shortly. That will not reduce the misunderstandings caused by your insistence on using a word to mean two different things, one of which is criminal in nature and the other of which is not.


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> Why do you insist on using an imprecise word? Does it matter that the majority of users express themselves badly? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well?
> 
> If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey fraud and "exceedingly expensive" to mean, well, exceedingly expensive.
> 
> The dictionary definitions do reflect the misuse of the word. Perhaps the OED will follow suit shortly. That will not reduce the misunderstandings caused by your insistence on using a word to mean two different things, one of which is criminal in nature and the other of which is not.


 
Brendan,

Your argument boils down to "I don't like the word being used in this fashion, therefore it is wrong."  I don't think I can make my point about how language evolves any clearer, if you won't even accept the OED's definition of a word then all is lost.  Clearly it is you who is living in a Wonderland!  Out of interest, are there any other terms you also have difficulty with?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Dec 2006)

The slang argument is somewhat facile in my opinion. Street slang often appropriates words to mean the opposite of what they mean conventionally and to to most people. For example - "bad" to mean "good". Does this mean that we should, as a matter of course, accept both contradictory meaings?


----------



## bankrupt (24 Dec 2006)

ClubMan said:


> The slang argument is somewhat facile in my opinion. Street slang often appropriates words to mean the opposite of what they mean conventionally and to to most people. For example - "bad" to mean "good". Does this mean that we should, as a matter of course, accept both contradictory meaings?


 
Yes, in the right context, of course we should, do you not?

You are right, the argument is a very simple one, I cannot understand why anyone cannot get their head around it.


----------



## damson (24 Dec 2006)

Brendan said:


> Why do you insist on using an imprecise word? Does it matter that the majority of users express themselves badly? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well?


 Ah, come on Brendan! The word is certainly imprecise - the vast majority of words are. So why do _you_ insist on using it? Why don't you just say 'fraud' instead of ripoff, if that's what you mean. Does it not matter that many listeners will think you are referring to high prices or being taken advantage of/exploited, when that's not what you mean at all? _Why do you not try to articulate yourself well? _


Brendan said:


> If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey fraud and "exceedingly expensive" to mean, well, exceedingly expensive.


 If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using, or maybe I'll just be able to take the meaning from the context in which it's used. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey exceedingly expensive and "fraud" to mean, well, fraud.


Brendan said:


> The dictionary definitions do reflect the misuse of the word.


 No, just its evolving use. 





Brendan said:


> Perhaps the OED will follow suit shortly.


 I've got the OED 2nd edn (1989) entry for rip-off in front of me now. This is what it says:

*rip-off*, _n. _(and_ a._)
_slang_ (orig. _U.S._).

*1.* One who steals, a thief. 
*1970* _Manch. Guardian Weekly_ 2 May 16/4 ‘Who do you have on Haight Street today?’ he [_sc_. a San Francisco drug peddler] said disgustedly... ‘You have burn artists (fraudulent dope peddlers), rip-offs (thieves), and snitchers (police spies).’ *1971* _Rolling Stone_ 24 June 8/3, I call them rip-offs, and they are, nothing but pirates and vultures.


*2.* A fraud, a swindle; a racket; an instance of exploitation, esp. financial. *1970* _Melody Maker_ 12 Sept. 29 _Rip off_, capitalist exploitation. *1970* _Time_ 21 Dec. 4/1 This is what, in contemporary parlance, is called a rip-off. *1971* _It_ 9-23 Sept. 12 Fun Caterers of Battersea..had the main catering concession (the biggest rip-off there.) *1973* _Houston_ (Texas) _Chron._ 21 Oct. 7/3 Dunlop said the increased spring markups had been ‘inflationary’, a polite word in the context for ‘ripoff’. *1974* _Sunday Sun_ (Brisbane) 28 July 24/2 The great snackbar rip-off that had city workers weeping into their salad rolls. *1975* _N.Y. Times_ 14 Apr. 30/4 A five-day week, with ten paid holidays, plus a ten-week paid vacation yearly. Such a contract is a ‘rip-off’. *1977* _Time_ 4 July 21/1 They [_sc_. French soldiers and civil servants] get rich and Djibouti gets nothing. That's not enlightened colonialism. It's a bloody rip-off. *1980* _Times_ 31 May 2/3 Britain's 41 motorway service areas..have attracted such accolades as ‘poor’, ‘appalling’ and ‘a rip-off’.


*3.* An imitation or plagiarism, usu. one made in order to exploit public taste. *1971* _Newsweek_ 18 Oct. 38/3 Most of the architecture is Inspired Bastard, most of the historical re-creations are Shameless Ripoff. *1974* _Publishers Weekly_ 4 Mar. 72/2 This kaleidoscopic fantasy, a ripoff on everything from spy novels to the Oedipus complex. *1976* _Time_ (Canada) 19 Jan. 16/3 Flynt runs three Hustler Clubs in Ohio, tacky rip-offs of the Playboy Clubs, offering expensive drinks and leggy ‘hostesses’. *1977* _Private Eye_ 1 Apr. 4/1 _Blue Belle_ [_sc_. a film], yet another of the seemingly endless _Emmanuelle_ rip-offs. *1980* _Jewish Chron._ 29 Feb. 30/2 We were treated to a kaleidoscopic mess of fifties rip-offs, sixties platitudes and seventies mistakes; shirtwaisters, minis, halter-necks, op art, sloppy joes, bermudas and, latest ubiquity, the flying suit.

*4. a.* _attrib._ passing into _adj._ 
*1971* _National Times_ (Austral.) 15-20 Feb. 1/3 In Sydney comics and books have been appearing from the ‘rip-off’ presshttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sp/em.gifthe underground printers and publishers who are printing editions of banned books sneaked singly through Customs. *1973* _Nation Rev._ (Melbourne) 24-30 Aug. 1399/6 The poor unfortunate buyer getting lumbered..with the cost of the device (at ripoff prices). *1973* _National Observer_ (U.S.) 6 Oct. 23/3 The ‘rip-off’ blues, the blues that musicians get when they write songs that make other people rich and leave them poor as before. *1975* _Time_ 12 May 17/1 The rip-off capital of the world [_sc_. Saigon]. *1976* _New Yorker_ 5 Apr. 31/2 Cargo leaving New York for places like South America is often a kind of object lesson in rip-off economics. *1976* _Times_ 11 June 8/1 The trade in old books is an incongruous mixture of fine art almost beyond price and the rascally hustle and rip-off hugger-mugger of a flea market.

*b.* _Comb._, as *rip-off artist*, *merchant*, one who carries out a rip-off; a thief, fraud, or racketeer. *1971* _Frendz_ 21 May 11/2 Rip-off artists are only occasionally armed or violent; more usual is..the traditional con~man. *1971* J. MANDELKAU _Buttons_ xiii. 149 From now on my club was going to have nought to do with the Alternative society and its rip-off merchants. *1974* _Amer. Speech 1970_ XLV. 210 Bring your own food. There won't be any ripoff merchants there. *1977* _It_ May 5/2, I am not suggesting that the Pink Floyd are rip-off artists, but it is undeniable that much contemporary music is a response to alienation. *1977*C. MCFADDEN _Serial_ xxxix. 84/2 He checked out the chain lock that secured his Motobecane against rip-off artists.

That was 7 years ago. Like bankrupt, I've no doubt that a new edition will go even further.



Brendan said:


> That will not reduce the misunderstandings caused by your insistence on using a word to mean two different things, one of which is criminal in nature and the other of which is not.


 How many misunderstandings of this kind actually occur? It seems to me that the majority of people, in the majority of cases, are capable of determining from the context whether someone using the word ripoff means fraud or excessively/exploitatively expensive. In fact, I can't think of a single discussion here on AAM where someone has said, "I'm confused... Do you mean fraud or excessively expensive?" On the contrary, most discussions have included something along the lines of:
_*Poster 1:* I see you've used the word 'ripoff'. I understand perfectly that you mean 'excessively expensive', but please don't use it that way; you're wrong._
_*Posters 2, 3, 4...:* No he's not wrong. That's a perfectly valid meaning._

Because there's a _context_ surrounding the word's use, the meaning becomes evident. Like the gay = happy/homosexual example above. Or, to move a little closer to your criminal/non-criminal distinction, if someone told me, "The garda booked the stripper," I expect I'd know from the context whether they meant the garda arrested the stripper for indecent exposure or the garda engaged the stripper to perform at his mate's stag night.


----------



## Gabriel (24 Dec 2006)

I don't think it matters how many times we point out that the term 'rip-off' has evolved! Some people are completely blinkered and blindly believe they *must* be right!

I'm personally stumped that people can't appreciate that the english language is constantly evolving and that _context_ is king....at all times.

For the record if I'm ever asked to define what I mean when I use the phrase 'rip-off' (depending on the context)...I will ignore the question!


----------



## Ancutza (25 Dec 2006)

What a terrible waste of otherwise obviously educated peoples time!


----------



## daithi (25 Dec 2006)

Merry xmas everybody!!!

d


----------



## damson (27 Dec 2006)

Hmmm... More discussion than votes, but so far it's:

A 20% (1 vote): SineWave
B 0%
C 80% (4 votes): damson, cambazola, Gabriel, Gordanus
D 0%
Total = 5 votes


damson said:


> *Ripoff:*
> 
> A - Has _one acceptable meaning only_, i.e. someone tries to charge a higher price than advertised/stated for an item. A high price can not be a ripoff unless the item in question has been fraudulently advertised at a lower price.
> 
> ...


 Don't forget you're voting on what the word means, rather than how you personally use it.


----------



## DrMoriarty (27 Dec 2006)

Vote for option D.

Don't want to say too much, but it involves _Velcro _*®*...


----------



## Guest127 (27 Dec 2006)

C.


----------



## Superman (27 Dec 2006)

c.


----------



## santiago (28 Dec 2006)

Another C cup.


----------



## Sunny (28 Dec 2006)

It is obvious that this argument is going to go on and on and on. From my point of view, people are just as entitled to use the term rip-off to mean exceedingly expensive as others are to use it to mean fraud. Actually more of a right I would say as people get charged with 'fraud'. They don't get charged with 'ripping off'. 
I have yet to see a thread where the term is used and it is not clear whether the poster means fraud or very expensive. Unfortuantly, the thread then gets hijacked by someone objecting to the use of the term and the thread goes off on a tangent to this on-going debate and it is getting boring boring boring. I think we all know at this stage where Brendan and Clubman stand and they are entitled to object to the use of the term in the wrong context according to them but do we need to go through the same debate every single time someone uses the term. New year, new beginning????


----------



## zag (28 Dec 2006)

Sunny - unfortunately the boring bit comes in when Brendan & Clubman pick people up on their perceived misuse of the word when it appears that the rest of the people on the board have no issue with it and understand the meaning from the context.  That there are now a number of people who continue to challenge Brendan & Clubman is co-incidental to the first point.

I agree the whole thing is boring at this stage and in reality doesn't need this level of debate, but the problem in my mind (and that of a number of others by the posts I see above) is that otherwise good posts are consistently ruined by some peoples insistence on challenging the use of a particular word.  This has the effect of derailing the original post.  It may be fine to have these discussions in Letting off Steam or Great Debates, but what seems to happen is that serious posts are dragged down to the LOS level by the insistence on challenging the use of the word (again and again).

Look at it this way - imagine you are standing in the street in the rain and I say to you "It's raining, let's get indoors".  Most other people would say something like "That's a good idea" or "No thanks, I'm waiting for a bus".  Some people on the board however might respond along the lines of "It's clearly not raining, it is in fact heavy precipitation bordering on a small storm, rain clearly implies the type of light precipitation normally experienced in April near coastal uplands and your use of the word is misleading and erroneous and incorrect so you should withdraw your use of the word and stop trying to mislead the rest of the people here and . . .  ."

While they continue discussing the many different types of rain the rest of us have got over it, moved on and gone indoors to where it is in fact dry.  This is not so bad - people are entitled to hold their view.

The bad bit comes along the next time you are standing out in the rain and someone says "It's raining, let's get indoors." and the whole darn thing starts over again as if it had never been discussed.



z


----------



## Sunny (28 Dec 2006)

zag said:


> Sunny - unfortunately the boring bit comes in when Brendan & Clubman pick people up on their perceived misuse of the word when it appears that the rest of the people on the board have no issue with it and understand the meaning from the context. That there are now a number of people who continue to challenge Brendan & Clubman is co-incidental to the first point.
> 
> 
> z


 
Fully agree with you. If they don't agree with the use of the word but everyone else understands the context, they shouldn't get involved.


----------



## MugsGame (28 Dec 2006)

zag, can I ask you to stop these terrible personal attacks ... on RainyDay!


> The bad bit comes along the next time you are standing out in the rain and someone says "It's raining, let's get indoors." and the whole darn thing starts over again as if it had never been discussed.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Dec 2006)

Despite the personal attack, I'm in full agreement with Zag.


----------



## Guest127 (28 Dec 2006)

how do you know it dry indoors?


----------



## pat127 (29 Dec 2006)

zag said:


> Look at it this way - imagine you are standing in the street in the rain and I say to you "It's raining, let's get indoors". Most other people would say something like "That's a good idea" or "No thanks, I'm waiting for a bus". Some people on the board however might respond along the lines of "It's clearly not raining, it is in fact heavy precipitation bordering on a small storm, rain clearly implies the type of light precipitation normally experienced in April near coastal uplands and your use of the word is misleading and erroneous and incorrect so you should withdraw your use of the word and stop trying to mislead the rest of the people here and . . . ."


 
Whatever you do, don't tell an Eskimo "It's snowing, let's get indoors" unless you can quantify it......

*A. Snow particles*

(1) Snowflake
qanuk 'snowflake'
qanir- 'to snow'
qanunge- 'to snow' [NUN]
qanugglir- 'to snow' [NUN]

(2) Frost
kaneq 'frost'
kaner- 'be frosty/frost sth.'

(3) Fine snow/rain particles
kanevvluk 'fine snow/rain particles
kanevcir- to get fine snow/rain particles

(4) Drifting particles natquik 'drifting snow/etc'
natqu(v)igte- 'for snow/etc. to drift along ground'

(5) Clinging particles
nevluk 'clinging debris/
nevlugte- 'have clinging debris/...'lint/snow/dirt...'

*B. Fallen snow*


(6) Fallen snow on the ground
aniu [NS] 'snow on ground'
aniu- [NS] 'get snow on ground'
apun [NS] 'snow on ground'
qanikcaq 'snow on ground'
qanikcir- 'get snow on ground'

(7) Soft, deep fallen snow on the ground
muruaneq 'soft deep snow'

(8) Crust on fallen snow
qetrar- [NSU] 'for snow to crust'
qerretrar- [NSU] 'for snow to crust'

(9) Fresh fallen snow on the ground
nutaryuk 'fresh snow' [HBC]

(10) Fallen snow floating on water
qanisqineq 'snow floating on water'

*C. Snow formations*


(11) Snow bank
qengaruk 'snow bank' [Y, HBC]

(12) Snow block
utvak 'snow carved in block'

(13) Snow cornice
navcaq [NSU] 'snow cornice, snow (formation) about to collapse'
navcite- 'get caught in an avalanche'

*D. Meterological events*


(14) Blizzard, snowstorm
pirta 'blizzard, snowstorm'
pircir- 'to blizzard'
pirtuk 'blizzard, snowstorm'

(15) Severe blizzard
cellallir-, cellarrlir- 'to snow heavily'
pir(e)t(e)pag- 'to blizzard severely'
pirrelvag- 'to blizzard severely'


----------



## santiago (29 Dec 2006)

We Irish don't do too badly with rain...

bia an tsic ("food for the frost") - rain in frosty weather
brádán báistí - light rain 
braon - a drop of rain
cith agus dealán - sunshine with showers 
ceóbhrán - light drizzle, mist
durach mór - a big shower
focíth fearthainne - occasional rain showers
frás- shower
fuarbháisteach earraigh - a cold Spring downpour 
greadadh báistí - heavy (pelting) (driving) rain 
plimp fearthainne - a sudden downpour of rain
síorbháisteach - a continuous downpouring of rain 
smurán - a shower 
stoirm ceatha - a shower driven on the wind
stoirm shíobhta bháistí - a driving rainstorm
taom fearthainne - a bucketing down of rain


----------



## z107 (30 Dec 2006)

No one posted this yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip-off


----------



## Marion (30 Dec 2006)

> Whatever you do, don't tell an Eskimo



... and whatever you do, don't call an Eskimo an Eskimo - they prefer to be called _Inuit_



> USAGE NOTE   The preferred term for the native peoples of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland is now Inuit, and the use of Eskimo in referring to these peoples is often considered offensive, especially in Canada. Inuit, the plural of the Inuit word inuk, “human being,” is less exact in referring to the peoples of northern Alaska, who speak dialects of the closely related Inupiaq language, and it is inappropriate when used in reference to speakers of Yupik, the Eskimoan language branch of western Alaska and the Siberian Arctic. See Usage Notes at Eskimo



Marion


----------



## daithi (31 Dec 2006)

could a moderator please lock this thread? it apperas to have disappeared up
 its own This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language at this stage....

d


----------



## Purple (2 Jan 2007)

damson said:


> Hmmm... More discussion than votes, but so far it's:
> 
> A 20% (1 vote): SineWave
> B 0%
> ...



I prefer definition A but accept that C is in common usage and so is correct. As has been pointed out, context is king.


----------



## ragazza (2 Jan 2007)

"C", definitely.

Probably "A" originally, but now the meaning has expanded to include "C".


----------



## SineWave (2 Jan 2007)

> could a moderator please lock this thread? it apperas to have disappeared up
> its own This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language at this stage....
> 
> d


 
Dathi, is the "d" at the end of your request, a vote or a signature?

On another note, I guess I need to change my vote as I can only consider the definition of a word to be that offered by recognised dictionaries. I am now a "C" but will personally continue to use in the context of my original vote of "A", and hope that on their revision, the dictionaries will edit this error, and stop ripping us off by claiming to offer (for a price€) correct definitions and meanings of words, whereby they have obviously made an error on this one!


----------



## ajapale (3 Jan 2007)

I think that use of the word 'rip-off' can be [SIZE=-1]disingenuous.[/SIZE]


----------



## bankrupt (3 Jan 2007)

ajapale said:


> I think that use of the word 'rip-off' can be [SIZE=-1]disingenuous.[/SIZE]



Do you have an example of such use?


----------



## ajapale (3 Jan 2007)

bankrupt said:


> Do you have an example of such use?



I can, but we would have to agree on the meaning of [SIZE=-1]disingenuous[/SIZE] first.


----------



## bankrupt (3 Jan 2007)

ajapale said:


> I can, but we would have to agree on the meaning of [SIZE=-1]disingenuous[/SIZE] first.



You fool!  everyone knows what disingenuous means:

disingenuous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] –noun, a golden, winged unicorn.


----------



## Purple (4 Jan 2007)

bankrupt said:


> You fool!  everyone knows what disingenuous means:
> 
> disingenuous [dis-in-jen-yoo-uhs] –noun, a golden, winged unicorn.



No! It’s a winged, golden unicorn. This is the sort of sloppy use of language that gets people wound-up. Wars have started over less!

(Does this thread remind anyone else of a Monty Python sketch?)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Jan 2007)

In my capacity as an ordinary poster on Askaboutmoney, I will continue to point out to people that the use of the word "rip-off" when describing prices in general is misleading. It does not matter whether this bores people or not. If people clarify up front that they are not implying any improper practices, I will probably not respond. But thread headings don't usually explain the context and so need to be challenged. 

In my capacity as the owner of Askaboutmoney I am not prepared to put my home on the line and allow people describe named shops as "rip-offs" as I consider it potentially defamatory. I have expanded on this here


----------



## bankrupt (7 Jan 2007)

Brendan said:


> In my capacity as an ordinary poster on Askaboutmoney, I will continue to point out to people that the use of the word "rip-off" when describing prices in general is misleading. It does not matter whether this bores people or not. If people clarify up front that they are not implying any improper practices, I will probably not respond. But thread headings don't usually explain the context and so need to be challenged.


 
It's good to see some old-fashioned stubborness, a loan voice in the wilderness immune to both logic and reason.



> In my capacity as the owner of Askaboutmoney I am not prepared to put my home on the line and allow people describe named shops as "rip-offs" as I consider it potentially defamatory. I have expanded on this here


 
This point is fair enough, no doubt there are plenty of kindred spirits from the law library who, also unable to deal with change, would convict as a result of misunderstanding the word's use 


Oops, just noticed that I mis-spelled "lone." this must be because I am now reluctant to use dictionaries having learned that they are wont to include the mis-use of words.


----------



## damson (7 Jan 2007)

bankrupt said:
			
		

> no doubt there are plenty of kindred spirits from the law library who, also unable to deal with change, would convict as a result of misunderstanding the word's use


 If so, they're not voting on AAM.

A 0% (previous vote withdrawn)
B 0%
C 91% (10 votes): damson, cambazola, Gabriel, Gordanus, cuchulainn, Superman, santiago, Purple, ragazza, SineWave
D 9% (1 vote): DrMoriarty [mysterious Velcro-related activity]
Total = 11 votes



			
				damson said:
			
		

> * Ripoff:
> 
> *_A - Has one acceptable meaning only, i.e. someone tries to charge a higher price than advertised/stated for an item. A high price can not be a ripoff unless the item in question has been fraudulently advertised at a lower price.
> 
> ...


----------



## podgerodge (24 May 2008)

C - Has multiple meanings, including an unreasonably high price.


and, imo, includes the likes of british retail stores charging excessive euro prices compared to the sterling equivalent.  And I may not have much choice if its a specialist electronics store for example.


----------



## S.L.F (26 May 2008)

Definitely C


----------



## The_Banker (27 May 2008)

Absolutely C


----------



## csirl (27 May 2008)

> *rip-off*
> 
> • *noun* [SIZE=-1]informal[/SIZE] *1* an article that is greatly overpriced. *2* an inferior imitation.


----------



## Caveat (27 May 2008)

That's the distinction IMO - used as a noun, it's a subjective expression of poor value but used as a verb, I would consider the complainer to be open to accusations of libel, defamation etc

Who resurrected this thread anyway?   

Oh yeah...."C"  by the way.


----------

