• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Mandela Effect: False Memory

pandacracker said:
The sound of P and B are the made the same way but one is voiced the other unvoiced (like F and V, G and K etc)

Have I got that right @Yithian?
Click to expand...
'P' requires an initial slightly higher initial (burst) amount of air (sound) pressure, (push from the lungs & mouth) whereas 'B' doesn't need as much.
 
Last edited:
Say 'Dib Dab' really quickly a few times. Then say 'Dip Dab' - they are virtually indistinguishable unless you speak Very Clearly and Slowly. So although dib and dip are two very different words, in a sentence (such as 'please will you go and buy me a Dib Dab?') they sound virtually the same.

You're all doing it, aren't you? Muttering 'dib dab dip dab' to yourselves...
 
escargot said:
Dunno if we've 'ad this -

Bassetts make a sherbet/liquorice concoction called a dip-dab. However, many adults believe they used to be called dib-dabs. With a b.
I certainly called them dib-dabs (with the b) but that might've been because I'd misheard it and the 'b' sound was easier to say.
Click to expand...
I've personably never known them as dib dabs. I only knew them as 'Sherbet Dips' and that was in the mid 80's in Staffordshire in our school tuck shop. They were packaged in a thin cardboard tube, logo on it, yellow and red from memory with the liquorice stick protruding out of the top.
 
Swifty said:
I've personably never known them as dib dabs. I only knew them as 'Sherbet Dips' and that was in the mid 80's in Staffordshire in our school tuck shop. They were packaged in a thin cardboard tube, logo on it, yellow and red from memory with the liquorice stick protruding out of the top.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the liquorice stick hollow so that you could use it as a straw and suck sherbet straight into your lungs? After that they clogged up with spit and sherbet paste and once you'd recovered from the coughing fit you could get the sherbet out with the liquorice.
 
Tunn11 said:
Wasn't the liquorice stick hollow so that you could use it as a straw and suck sherbet straight into your lungs? After that they clogged up with spit and sherbet paste and once you'd recovered from the coughing fit you could get the sherbet out with the liquorice.
Click to expand...
That's also how I also remember them and how they were supposed to be used but given the choice of Kola Cubes or liquorice back then? .. liquorice was vile so Kola Cubes, rice paper constructed Flying Saucers containing sherbet etc won every time.
 
escargot said:
Dunno if we've 'ad this -

Bassetts make a sherbet/liquorice concoction called a dip-dab. However, many adults believe they used to be called dib-dabs. With a b.
I certainly called them dib-dabs (with the b) but that might've been because I'd misheard it and the 'b' sound was easier to say.
Click to expand...

Swifty said:
I've personably never known them as dib dabs. I only knew them as 'Sherbet Dips' and that was in the mid 80's in Staffordshire in our school tuck shop. They were packaged in a thin cardboard tube, logo on it, yellow and red from memory with the liquorice stick protruding out of the top.
Click to expand...
You're getting your confectionary mixed up :)

The sherbet/liquorice one in the yellow tube was a sherbet fountain. Dip-dabs were a flat bag of sherbet with a small lollipop in it.
 
Fluttermoth said:
You're getting your confectionary mixed up :)

The sherbet/liquorice one in the yellow tube was a sherbet fountain. Dip-dabs were a flat bag of sherbet with a small lollipop in it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I've never seen the lollipop version. They were big on sherbet in the 70's weren't they. My Sister used to buy rainbow sherbet out of those big tubs so just multi coloured sherbet. It's a miracle she's still got all of her own teeth.
 
Past tenses do tend to wander about a bit. I remember when the past tense of 'dive' was 'dove'. Now it's 'dived'. And I'm increasingly seeing the past tense of 'weave' not as 'wove' (which I've always used) but as 'weaved'.
 
JudSawyer said:
I thought the imperfect tense of 'to spin' was 'span' for over 50 years, but I think it's probably a West Yorkshire regional variation
Click to expand...
I always believed that the Scots word for the past tense of jump was ''jamp'' (not 'jumped') but any Scots/Lallans speakers I've asked this of recently insist I'm talking utter nonsense, and it was never so...hmm, odd

A somewhat-niche Mandela momentito, but as they say in Peckham, c'est la vie
 
Ermintruder said:
I always believed that the Scots word for the past tense of jump was ''jamp'' (not 'jumped') but any Scots/Lallans speakers I've asked this of recently insist I'm talking utter nonsense, and it was never so...hmm, odd

A somewhat-niche Mandela momentito, but as they say in Peckham, c'est la vie
Click to expand...
According to this, it is:

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/jamp
 
brownmane said:
According to this, it is
Click to expand...
Wow, that's usefully timeline-affirming (for me): many thanks! Aside from the impermanent mutability of Wikipedia, of course.

Which suddenly makes me realise something massively-obvious in respect of the Mandela Effect as a putative phenomenon: in addition to it apparently having only emerged as a sub-collective set of shared suspicions (courtesy of the discursive medium that is the internet), and its majoring focus upon 'modern' media works of artifice or reportagé: do we have any level of certainty regarding the earliest pre Nelson Mandela era 'Mandela Effect' manifestation? In circumstances much more neoclassically-profound than an android's shin or a Bond beauty's braces?

In the pre-WWW (well, also pre-news media) era there could be said to have been such a thing as experts. Individuals who (independently, and referentially) knew massive amounts of information on certain areas of focus. These point-sources of reference were (I believe the old word was...) trusted but not necessarily tapped for their content: unless in response to a context of informative need.

Nowadays, the true expert is (to a meaningful approximation) dead. Instead we are all simply ignorant conduits of postulated semi-single-source expertise, not randomly-garnered from tribal mythshares in smoky bars, or keenly absorbed at the knees of grandmothers.

We are (to a big extent) no longer creating insular syntheses of the information sets we acquire during segments our lives; there is the end of analysis & derivative conclusion /critique. We all know what we think, and remember, because we've read it today on the Internet.

Maybe I shall try to chew some more offline ontological bitter-pills later...
 
Last edited:
Ermintruder said:
In the pre-WWW (well, also pre-news media) era there could be said to have been such a thing as experts. Individuals who (independently, and referentially) knew massive amounts of information on certain areas of focus. These point-sources of reference were (I believe the old word was...) trusted but not necessarily tapped for their content: unless in response to a context of informative need.

Nowadays, the true expert is (to a meaningful approximation) dead. Instead we are all simply ignorant conduits of postulated semi-single-source expertise, not randomly-garnered from tribal mythshares in smoky bars, or keenly absorbed at the knees of grandmothers.
We all know what we think, and remember, because we've read it today on the internet.
Click to expand...
It amuses me that many young people I encounter on Twitter imagine life before the internet to have been unenlightened and more difficult than it is now, what with having to go to the library to look things up. I used to enjoy a Saturday trip on one of the then frequent buses to one of the two nearby libraries (and there were others a bit further away) to do a bit of research.

Such young people also underestimate the reach of newspapers and TV news (and radio of course).

They also challenge the accounts of people of my age on the grounds that they read something different online. e.g. they have found reports about climate change as long ago as the 19th century so they say it's not true that my generation didn't know about it. They won't have it that such reports were niche and few, did not reach mass media, and that in fact we were told at school that another ice age might be coming.
 
Ermintruder said:
Nowadays, the true expert is (to a meaningful approximation) dead. Instead we are all simply ignorant conduits of postulated semi-single-source expertise,
Click to expand...
Exactly. When I first joined the internet world as late as 2009 (for school studies), I quickly realized how useless the internet is for any type of reliable information.

It quickly became apparent that any references I tried to cite for my essays that I had researched online would ultimately lead back to a single source. We know that this is not valid research when you only have a single source. I found the internet ridiculously useless for much well researched information.

Of course, now we refer to the echo chambers that many people are caught up in. This was apparent to me as soon as I tried to find information over 10 years ago. The internet was designed to do this.

People now are ignorantly unaware of how to source information and how to critique the veracity of what is told to them. One source does not make it true.
 
brownmane said:
Exactly. When I first joined the internet world as late as 2009 (for school studies), I quickly realized how useless the internet is for any type of reliable information.

It quickly became apparent that any references I tried to cite for my essays that I had researched online would ultimately lead back to a single source. We know that this is not valid research when you only have a single source. I found the internet ridiculously useless for much well researched information.

Of course, now we refer to the echo chambers that many people are caught up in. This was apparent to me as soon as I tried to find information over 10 years ago. The internet was designed to do this.

People now are ignorantly unaware of how to source information and how to critique the veracity of what is told to them. One source does not make it true.
Click to expand...
That's very true!
 
brownmane said:
Exactly. When I first joined the internet world as late as 2009 (for school studies), I quickly realized how useless the internet is for any type of reliable information.

It quickly became apparent that any references I tried to cite for my essays that I had researched online would ultimately lead back to a single source. We know that this is not valid research when you only have a single source. I found the internet ridiculously useless for much well researched information.

Of course, now we refer to the echo chambers that many people are caught up in. This was apparent to me as soon as I tried to find information over 10 years ago. The internet was designed to do this.

People now are ignorantly unaware of how to source information and how to critique the veracity of what is told to them. One source does not make it true.
Click to expand...
Spot-on!
I remember when I was studying 'A' level history. At school, we were told that we could use whatever sources that were available in the library.
I failed that 'A' level, but decided to retake it at a college of FE. At the college, we were told to stick to the set text, which was a book by Asa Briggs. This gave our research a certain bias, as seen through a political filter. At one point, I decided to do some really detailed research for one assignment, so I pulled together lots of source books and cited them all painstakingly. The history teacher told me off for doing that! One thing I did find out was that not all historical sources agree with each other, even for basic details such as dates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top