Skip to main content

Bag for Life Top Trumps

As someone with green aspirations (come on, I did write Ecologic), I'm all in favour of supermarket 'bag for life' offerings, which mean you reuse your bags rather than throw them away. However, I think it is boring, and quite possibly in bad taste, to use a bag in the shop from which it was obtained.

Instead, to keep the shopping experience amusing, the shopper should play a game of Bag-for-life Top Trumps®. The idea is simple. Always use a bag with snob value at the supermarket in which you are shopping. So:
  • In Aldi/Lidl use at least an Asda bag
  • In Asda use at least a Tesco bag
  • In Tesco use at least a Sainsbury's bag
  • In Sainsbury's use at least a Marks & Spencer bag
  • In Marks & Spencer use at least a Waitrose bag
  • In Waitrose...
... ah, yes. What to do in that doyen of supermarkets? No problem, because there is one bag that trumps them all - a French supermarket bag. In fact it's best to stick to one of these at any store, then you don't have to worry about whether you are properly attired. You can always feel superior.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Eve Harvey6 September 2010 at 11:19

    Awesome! This is a brilliant idea :) I love the people who come in to our shop with their Harrods bags... it's so obviously the snob value of them!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lesley6 September 2010 at 13:17

    Someone, somewhere, is going to market that idea and provide a Christmas Selection Box of the variously branded bags with the 'Top Trumps®', rating on them!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg7 September 2010 at 09:43

    But they totally miss the point, Eve, as Harrods comes lower than Lidl on the scale. Far too showy/lacking taste. Liberty would be good, though.

    Excellent idea, Lesley. I only request a 10% commission if you would like to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Angela Saini9 September 2010 at 15:04

    Whole Foods! It trumps them all!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg9 September 2010 at 17:21

    I don't know, Angela, it hasn't got the je-ne-sais-quoi... (also a bit worthy, like having a charity bag, which I'm afraid doesn't cut the Top Trumps mustard)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Angela Saini11 September 2010 at 11:13

    In which supermarket would I find Top Trumps mustard?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brian Clegg11 September 2010 at 12:46

    Good question. I can't think of a good answer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more