Actually, it's more like, "Suck my penis, asshole."
loneal » neu1 years ago
Aaaaand this discussion is already being had further down the page. Fuck you, loneal.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Kinda felt the same when I got there. (Although why I was thinking of you, I'm not sure. . .)
sleepyhead » neu1 years ago
FUCK YOU ALL....im right.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Like I said, "Suck my dick, fucker."
dangelder » neu1 years ago
The taco clerk is so angry, the back of his head is splitting into dos hemispheros!
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
damn
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
I'm gullible
irondave » neu1 years ago
I think this is fakery, the account was created just minutes ago.
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
there are two underscores in there, but if it is fake, then that is some very realistic copy that got written. And I completely concur about the image posting.
irondave » neu1 years ago
It's some kind of Low Shenanigan is what it is.
With a grain of truth inside.
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
I don't to be too pedantic about this, because this is a self-regulatory forum on the internet, a comparatively vibrant one, and the thing democracy does best is disappoint you about human behavior. But I do wish some of the angrier threads could be collapsed or something, or that, just once in a while, people wouldn't feed the trolls just because work is boring.
Again, this is not to be pedantic, because fuck if I haven't posted some pictures of horses with dogs' heads and other shit. But far more often than not, we do manage to elevate this forum out of the usual genetic refuse of anonymous internet posting and it would be nice if we, somehow, managed to not be total dicks more often.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
There is only one viewed strip, so it is not the same account that has already posted a few times recently. However, this does not mean that the person isn't part of the achewood teacm. I think that it is still likely that this is a person we should listen to. What the person is saying does make perfect sense. I'm sorry, all, for posting that picture of the Doug/Skeeter/Patti Wobbly H. I won't do it again.
Let it be known, though, that a lot of traffic, probably, is from us Assetbarians checking new comments. However, traffic does not neccessarily mean more people buying from the store. It does mean more loyalty, however.
I do hope that the new forums will be made quickly, and is somewhat organized. We can just have two threads, even. One can be random, the other can be comic discussion. Because I really love the randomness of it all, but I can understand how people can be annoyed by a bunch of nonsense while other people just want discussion of the comic.
I thought that Assetbar was Onstad's creation. Isn't Achewood the only contractee? I can't find any others.
I guess I'll going to TOUAMB, or whatever it's called.
blastradius » neu1 years ago
http://www.flickr.com/photos/msjacoby/2403205461/
sje46 » neu1 years ago
I have shamed myself.
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
Psh, this is totally fake. A woman would never be able to administrate something on the internet!
dangelder » neu1 years ago
What kind of hosting scenario are we talking about here? You're not hosting the images. How many MB per day?
loneal » neu1 years ago
This is bullshit, y'all. I met one Assetbar developer at the launch party and have emailed with another, and they were talking about expanding and improving Assetbar/Fanflow, partially to keep out trolls like this AIU fool who is posing as admin right now. I somehow doubt Onstad would have invited his Assetbar dudes to the launch party if he were about to cut them off.
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
It does seem like pretty horrifying business sense to euthanize an entire community that has grown up around your intellectual property.
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
I'm...feeling sheepish about my quick nervousness here.
(Someone please post the grisly image of a misshapen fetal sheep.)
(please don't actually do this)
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Anyone hear a wind blowing?
lexsenthur » neu1 years ago
Dust.
Wind.
Dude.
hamscout » neu1 years ago
There were many steps and columns.
It was most tranquil.
pogo » neu1 years ago
You were punked.
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
Man loneal you got so much rage coming out of you these days your T-Zone is leaking fury
loneal » neu1 years ago
"These days"?
loneal » neu1 years ago
Also, since I am up near the top of the page here, I just want to say that if any other Assetbastards are going to the GOF launch party on Saturday, you should come say hi to me, because I don't know what you look like, but you probably know what I look like from my old avaticon. I will take the form of a small blond girl with a nose ring, standing next to a tall, thin, goateed boy.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
For a second, I read "goatsed boy". Is this what you have to do nowadays to date a feminist?
area_homosexual » pro1 years ago
Someone called Marc Antony "king of the goats" in an episode of Rome that I watched last night, referring to his pronounced and wild libido, which seems superficially appropriate, what with the horns/hooves/beards, but really "king of the goats"? He wasn't eating a hockey stick, tire, etc., he was hitting on a houseservant. "King of the rabbits", maybe? If rabbits had impressive horns, they'd dominate the sexual simile scene.
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
Goats have enormous balls. I don't know if that's what it was about, but it seems relevant.
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Goats are pretty fuckin' awesome. Seriously. I'd much rather be "King of the Goats" than "King of the Rabbits".
I don't know which throne would be more unstable. On the one hand, a male goats' weapons are rather obvious and they butt heads to fight for ze wimmenz. But on the other hand, rabbits can be pretty damned violent, if Watership Down tells us nothing else. Plus, there'd be so many of them ! And you're life-span would be much shorter.
Sure, King of the Rabbits would get hella more sexin' - but how much more than the average peasant? They're frikkin' rabbits, after all* And after a while it'd surely mean nothing anymore, sorta like if you were a pornstar: surely, a sure-fire way to ruin your sex life.
King of the Goats all the way.
*See also: King of the Squirrels. Totally unprotected and everything.
falseprophet » pro1 years ago
Chubby for Full Metal Panic: Fumoffu? avicon.
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Believe it or not, I had no idea where this was from. I am not one who is a fan of anime in general. Not against it, just not really into it.
I am, however, a fan of the wonderful calibre of wrestling from the Far East. And upon spying on another forum an avatar of some kind of anime wherein a chick was giving a dude a Japanese Ocean Cyclone Suplex - I just had to have it .
That's right, boys: female wrestlers in Japan can actually wrestle. Not like the glorified pole dancers in the West. No, no: the moves that chicks made up 15 years ago, most white guys in Western Wrestling are still shit scared to do.
(for further knowledge as to why this move really hurts and most guys are too pussy to do it, realise that your arms are what breaks your fall and keeps you from being winded. From that height, you're gonna have a bad headache if you fuck it up just a bit.)
rawk5tar » neu1 years ago
Ow.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
skoora » neu1 years ago
Oh man, is anyone else going to that? I'm torn between that and a concert and I don't want to go if it's going to be lame.
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
I was thinking of going (SFO is a quick flight from where I live), but I don't want to go if it's going to be lame.
(Is it going to be lame?)
skoora » neu1 years ago
It will be if no one else is going.
loneal » neu1 years ago
Um I will be there so it will obviously be rockin'. Duh.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
She ain't kidding. Just the smell of nerd gets her topless on the table. You all will have a blast if she's there. Even better if you can slip her a drink or four
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
Nerd? There will be nerds there? /me clicks the launch party link and finds that the venue is a comic book store
Okay, I guess there will be nerds there.
laserblade » neu1 years ago
AS will I. So it will be nearly as epic as the GOF itself.
tropicana » neu1 years ago
I considered going, but a look at plane tickets made me decide that going to San Francisco for a day is Something I Cannot Afford.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
It's soooo lame to fly 3000 miles across the country. SO lame.
cpnglxynchos » neu1 years ago
[IMGS OFF]
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Then take these pictures, man, and randomly PhotoShop Bruce Campbell in there, and we can all pretend that it was me and that that is what I actually look like. Although thank goodness it is not.
invidious » neu1 years ago
[i]Chupa mi pene, loneal.[i]
(?)
invidious » con1 years ago
Chupa mi pene, assetbar.
inspectorgadget » neu1 years ago
Chupa mi pene, fignuts.
stereo » neu1 years ago
I think the Captain is talking to himself again quick everyone ask for a pay rise while he's insane
jlynes » neu1 years ago
When is it time for the "I Hate Marco Show"? I want to give that mailbox head what for!
desert_donkey » neu1 years ago
hey gabacha, 'asshole' is 'pendejo', comprede?
gormster » neu1 years ago
I thought that was "dickhead".
skoora » neu1 years ago
Oye, puta, pendejo es "idiot"
I don't really think you're a puta, we're just on this spanish curse words thing.
thickbasssteak » neu1 years ago
why do we insist that spanish foul language has direct english equivalency?
gormster » neu1 years ago
Well... it's literally "pubic hair". So, no, I guess it doesn't have a direct equivalent, but it probably has an "impact" equivalent, yes?
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Pubic hair can also be public hair, but that can get you arrested.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
OK. Nice. Now zip it up, acheman!
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
tommycrashwreck » neu1 years ago
Gigglyfacts make me laugh. This was one.
oldmanmusic » neu1 years ago
impact equivalent yes, but this is not the matter at argument, as you can see
belgand » neu1 years ago
If my understanding is correct it would most accurately be "Suck my penis, cuckold". Not a common insult in English, but I guess if one is to assume that the spouse is a metaphorical the concept of insulting one's masculinity and sexual prowess is pretty standard.
dejavroom » neu1 years ago
Thank you assetbar I think I will...
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
One person not to get a "fuck you" today is assetbar. I logged in today to find my inbox was arrange chronologically. It put some spring in my step and some starch in the front of my shorts. Congrats, assetbar. You did it.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Hair on my chest and lead in my pencil. I too approve.
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
Yep, it sure does put a glint in my eye and syrup on my sundae. Slams some song in my throat and slips some sweat on my palm. Pumps some gas in guts and slides a bit of polish on my prosthetics. An Astair in my tap-step and some wild geese in my winnebago. Some dangerous, cancerous additives in my moisturizer and some Italian accent in my barber's semi-coherent, enraged mutterings. Packs some cordite in my Easter Eggs and puts some curry on my cowlick. Puts some moral ambiguity in my overwritten noir-pastiche short stories and some Roma tomatoes in my garnish.
Goddamn, work is boring.
tekende » pro1 years ago
This post put some sunshine in my penis, let me tell you that.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
OK, Tekende. Now please zip up.
tekende » neu1 years ago
I'll make a deal with you. Every time you say "meow", some version of "PUURRRR" or something about fish, I'm going to make a post somewhere on the page about my penis.
So if you want to stop reading about my penis, stop acting like a cat. Cool?
invidious » pro1 years ago
Chubbied. This is not "I CAN HAS ACHEWOOD" -- nor should it become "I CAN HAS TEKENDE'S PENIS."
Lechatbotte: do the right thing.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Tekende brings the pain.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
gladi8orrex » neu1 years ago
dun gib in 2 da terrorizts. gud man
gladi8orrex » neu1 years ago
...or shuld i say ata-cat lol
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Thank you Glad. Solidarity, man, solidarity!
stereo » neu1 years ago
The thought of your hairy ass makes me even more uncomfortable wehn I realize I don't even konw what pecies it is.
This post has been brought to you by typing whith hmy eyjs closed and pre. Seriously eyelids are way too much work.tending I know hw to ue the backspace properly
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Akarroa: Ya' made my day with this one!
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
(Roast Beef wanted me to tell you he doesn't approve.)
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
Meow meow, tiger.
;0) ;0) ;0)
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
alright that is wildly inappropriate SORRY EVERYBODY i wont be the perverted older lady in the apartment complex who wears coral lipstick anymore
tekende » neu1 years ago
Well, this has gone to unexpected and possibly weird places.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
...sexy places?
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
RED ALERT RED ALERT: I did not really intend to see anyone's junk tonight, I was just meaning to strike an easy pin in this bowling game we call assetbar.
So please everybody stop changing your avatars to pictures of dicks and assorted balls
(note for the future: this really was the way it went down on lo that September 13th)
(ah tee hee, hee)
tekende » neu1 years ago
Note for the future: no it wasn't
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
As a community, we have the option of proving either Tekende or Autrepoupee wrong.
drskradley » neu1 years ago
I would show a picture of my penis but it would be so overwhelming to you all as to result in numerous unexplained pregnancies in the less fortified of characters out there, along with multiple cases of "the vapours".
I didn't say whether this was because it was good or bad or big or small or what. Just....overwhelming.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Dude, I can get you a picture of him, and a bottle of oil, and a night's stay at a local motel, and you can have a whole lotta fun - but just the fuck up.
irony_or_death » neu11 months ago
Hi, this is the future. We totally don't believe you.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Would this be a "wrong" place to add ". . . in my pants"?
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Dude, that last post was a bit harsher than meant. I was literially laughing my head off as I wrote it.
I'd have said so sooner, but part of having a life to really live means not being in front of the 'puter 24/7, so now is the soonest I've been able to get back with ya'.
Let me clean up a little with ya'. I'll start by saying what is so for me: I almost always enjoy reading your posts. Your voice and input have made a difference for me in reading comments before I even had an account here. You are one of the last folks here I would want to authentically offend.
My only question: If the "catty" remarks really put you off that much, why would you start with a threat, especially one as ineffectual as that, before you tried just sharing with me how that strikes you? Or was it just meant for humor?
Dude, help me understand.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
(This was aimed at Tekende.)
By the way: >MEOW!<
tekende » neu1 years ago
That was pretty much meant humorously.
Also I did mention that the cat thing was annoying a few days ago. But whatever.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Thank you for the clarity.
stereo » neu1 years ago
[ TEKENDE COME ON SHOW ME HIM NAKED ]
stereo » neu1 years ago
If wanting to see skinny white guys naked is wrong, please let me off at the next universe. Or at least buy me a mirror.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
I thought you were going to end that with "then I don't want to be right."
stereo » neu1 years ago
I want to be right so hard that I am expecting the universe to change to fit my desires.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
cpnglxynchos » neu1 years ago
as i was scrolling past, i read that as PLURRRR and got confused for a moment.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Whoa, Old Greg flashback.
theguitarhero » neu1 years ago
That update gives me an erection.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Hey now...
cromar » neu1 years ago
That's good news. Still, fuck assetbar... no uh... you're right.
FUCK BBCODE
heccibiggs » neu1 years ago
Oh my God. Oh my God amazing. I'm going to look at so many comments on older strips that I've never seen. I'm so happy. This will surely keep me amused until I'm tired.
heccibiggs » neu1 years ago
Tired enough to go to bed, I mean. It's past midnight and there's no one online to talk to but I don't want to go to sleep yet. Who hates this? I do.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Awww, next time you are all alone and chatty online, I'll be glad to talk to you. Hell, I'm already in my wizard hat and robes
odei » neu1 years ago
If you can find the appropriate information on facebook, and have the inclination to do so, I am happy to talk to assetbarians via instant messenger in a completely different way to hedonismbot.
heccibiggs » neu1 years ago
Thanks for the offers guys.
I've finally caught up with all the comments I'd never looked at since the handfaceweekend when my inbox turned into a non-negotiable wasteland. I discovered that a couple of months back I gained a stalker by the name of atticusonline, who may or may not still be stalking me, and that an uncomfortable number of my posts seem to have been chubbied purely because of my Redhead Female status. Seriously. One time, someone said something, and I said "Ditto." and got like four chubbies for it! Come on, guys. Come on.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
omg i luv ur hair, chuppy!
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
aperson » neu1 years ago
Oh hecci, you're so cute when you're being cyber-stalked.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Aperson - you've changed!
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
Changed into a giant rabbit, no less. And she's about to eat an airplane.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Harvey, anyone?
octafish » neu1 years ago
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy, Doctor, I finally won out over it.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
...The Dark Knight Returns?
octafish » neu1 years ago
Jimmy Stewart, in Harvey.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
At least I was honest about it when I did that.
snidedk » neu1 years ago
Chubby for unwarranted meanness.
tekende » pro1 years ago
I'm out of chubbies, but I just want to say that this comment made me laugh really, really hard.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HELLO HECCIBIGGUS I CONFEST I AM ATTICUSONLINE, HOWEVERS, I AM NOT STILL STALKING YOU. IT WAS GOING REAL WELL UNTIL I STARTED TO UNCOVERS MORE AND MORE PICTURES OF YOU AN D YOU ARE CUTE BUT I FINALLYS DECIDED YOU ARE TOO FATS. SORRY. YOUR ASSETBARS ICONS IS A RMISEPSENTATION OF YOU. I KNOW YOUS HAVES ME BLOCKED SO YOU WILL NEVERS EEE THIS CONFESSION SO YOU WILL STILL THINKS I AM STALKING YOUS. HA HA HA. WHATEVER. GIVING YOURSELF TOO MUCH CREDITS.
heccibiggs » neu1 years ago
Actually I don't have you blocked.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Oh. Well, I may as well stop laming you, then.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Wow, those tiny ignore markers can be hard to see.
pogo » neu1 years ago
Ah yes, memories. Like when I asked you who your picture was, and you thought I was coming across the Atlantic to stalk you.
strix22 » neu1 years ago
Fuck You!
boredom_man » neu1 years ago
It doesn't sound like much of a curse, until you realize he's summoning the wrath of one apostrophe for three foreheads. There will be staples.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
I feel the same way Connie does.
biff » neu1 years ago
This is one of my favorite pet peeves. Whenever possible I do whatever I can to deface the sign to eliminate the offending extraneous apostrophe.
I like Cornelius's solution better though.
hipjiverobot » neu1 years ago
The "estimate's" kills me.
efurman » neu1 years ago
Oh crap, you're right! I missed that. Good catch.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
(Now I owe you one.)
: )
hipjiverobot » neu1 years ago
I am pleasantly amazed at how many chubbies this comment has gotten.
irondave » neu1 years ago
Think of the extra yuks you delivered to our lives. Worth at least a chubby. (One is from me.)
hipjiverobot » neu1 years ago
Awwww
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Shit, I didn't even see the Window Guy's one. I only saw the estimate's.
area_homosexual » pro1 years ago
I took an embarrassingly long look around the panel for window related offenses against Cornelius. Did he want a window installed and the store was closed, no window in the door makes the store offensively ideosyncratic...an apostrophe on their foreheads, eh? Holy Smokers, is that a Dante reference or something? What did...oh, the fucking grammatical error. Check.
notebook scribble: "He's neurotic about grammatical errors/is the grammar police".
irondave » neu1 years ago
May many chubbies be yours today, friend.
latterman » neu1 years ago
You guys are just lucky you don't live in Puerto Rico. Here, you're lucky if a sign doesn't titillate by claiming a used car possesses ownership of the telephone number written below.
I'll see about following up with photographs during the week so you can all visualize my point more clearly.
obtree » neu1 years ago
When I was an uneducated kid, my problem was commas. I would go comma wild and my sentences would basically suck ass. Over the years I have had to retrain myself in this matter, however that ghost has always loomed over me..
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Such as that one between matter and however?
I think a period would be better. I'm not 100% sure.
jbushnell » neu1 years ago
Semi-colon, dudes. Semi-colon.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Yeah. That def makes more sense.
obtree » neu1 years ago
No way! Its not like I'm trying to piece together two closely related sentences together. I just made a complex sentence. If you used a period or a semicolon it wouldn't flow as well; it would be all choppy. If anything I think I would have license to actually add another comma after the however, but that would make it sound kind of old fashioned.
tgies » neu1 years ago
Nah, that's a comma splice. An extra comma would be even worse. Semicolons for President up there is right.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I have to go with semi-colon here.
dangelder » neu1 years ago
Go get pegged in a room
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Two disparaging references in the same strip. What's Onstad got against rooms anyway?
gorrioncita » neu3 months ago
up to eight tenths of bad things are known to happen in rooms. fact.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Whaaaat the fuck?
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Semi-colon would be so much smoother without the however. Or maybe a semicolon, followed by a comma after the however?
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Minus a however, because that's a conjunction, and semi-colons erase the need for conjunctions.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
"Over the years I have had to retrain myself in this matter; however, that ghost has always loomed over me..."
You're right, that would work better as a new sentence. Not that it would be functioning as a conjunction in that case.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I don't think you can start a new sentence with a conjunction though. I think adding a semi-colon and removing the "however" is the way to go. Or just start a new sentence minus the however.
obtree » neu1 years ago
Yeah, actually if I could go back and do it all over I probably would have done that. Another added bonus of using semicolons is that they bestow a certain amount of sophistication.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I agree; they're the best.
speccer » neu1 years ago
SEMICOLONS
LOVE THEM
(sorry)
I go through phases of using them heavily or not at all, and whenever I do I think I use them too much.
Obviously I'm in a "not at all" phase.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
I hate the stuff you like...
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
Yeah, well what about...have you heard the Kenny Winkler?
theirateturk » neu1 years ago
Semicolons are the best thing ever. Seriously.
aperson » neu1 years ago
Even if a semi-colon is not appropriate, putting one in makes you sound more french, so it's a win-win.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Desole', mais comment ca te fait sonner "plus francais"?
aperson » neu1 years ago
Oh the french frickin eat up semi-colons. It's a sign of excellent sexual prowess to use semi-colons well in France.
Ca peut bien etre. Mais, comment ca te fait sonner plus francais?
aperson » neu1 years ago
Parskeh les francais avay more de la semi-colons dans leur writing - therefore avec plus de semi-colons soundet das writing plus franzosisch. C'est einfach. You're welcome.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
There I go, laughing my hairy ass off again! A chubby for the effort.
Seriously, how does it make it sound more French? (What exactly is the sound of a semicolon?)
stereo » neu1 years ago
A smug tone of voice, a knowing nod from their handsomely attired friend... oh, you will know when they drop a semicolon in.
aperson » neu1 years ago
Well, you can talk about the sound of writing... can't you? But when spoken, a semi-colon is half way between a comma and a full-stop. Also, the nostrils flare slightly.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Flaring nostrils and a half-way between sound? You're right! It does sound more French! Thank you!
hamscout » neu1 years ago
Now smoke while you are doing it!
Oh Hoh Hohnh!
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
I am a comma fiend as well. I attribute my problems to being taught that a comma means a "pause" in the sentence, like taking a breath.
odei » neu1 years ago
I used commas as pauses and I paused like I had asthma.
dangelder » neu1 years ago
I turned your thma into supper chunks last night
odei » neu1 years ago
I don't know what 'thma' is.
boredom_man » neu1 years ago
It's an abbreviation for "Eternal September."
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
I am an avid supporter of the serial comma. I wince when I see it omitted.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
I don't mind when people don't use it, but I can't quit it. I have an obsession for the serial comma almost as strong as my passion for the semicolon.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Semi-colons are overrated. Give me full colons any day. Love them. Tight.
Who's with me?
Turk?
pogo » neu1 years ago
Colonoscopy anyone?
theirateturk » neu1 years ago
I see what you did here :):)
sje46 » neu1 years ago
I have an obsession with semi-colons too.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Express your love, then, in creepy italics
soupkaty » neu1 years ago
Fact: In Associated Press style, Oxford commas are omitted.
Opinion: I miss Oxford commas.
pogo » neu1 years ago
Actual fact: AP only omits the serial comma in short series, such as red, white and blue. All others get it. Now assume the position for some grammar discipline.
pityparty » neu1 years ago
Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
odei » neu1 years ago
Me, featurelessvoid, and apparently soupkaty.
melloclello » neu1 years ago
I've seen those English dramas, too-hoo
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
They're croo-hool.
tekende » neu1 years ago
Why would you speak to me that way
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Yeah! Why would you talk to him that way?
whiteturtle » neu1 years ago
Why would you lie 'bout how much coal you have? Why would you lie 'bout something dumb like that? Why would you lie 'bout anything at all?
tekende » neu1 years ago
Li'l Jon, he always tell the truth
rowboat » pro1 years ago
Serial commas freak my shit out. They're like a little fire in the middle of my carpet. That's the way I react to them.
obtree » neu1 years ago
Ya totally! That is exactly my excuse too.
atmus » neu1 years ago
The Cornelius Solution is a Mod band name.
rowboat » pro1 years ago
I wouldn't wanna live in a world without mistakes like that. It'd be boring as fuck.
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
It's a white-hot cattle brand in the shape of a Gothic apostrophe. It never cools and stands ready to stamp the
forehead of each and every one of us.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
What does he want up his wife?
Mr. Onstad, please clarify. I am five years old and do not know much about these things.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Well, Billy, remember that time you put a marble up your nose, just because you could?
This is kind of like that. Except with a PENIS.
tetsujin » neu1 years ago
So he's gonna stick it up her nose?
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
No you idiot's, their goin to stick it up his penis
woodenteeth » neu1 years ago
Urethral Stimulation.
mystkmanat » neu1 years ago
It makes me feel weird to know that that is a thing.
First Beef's senior class photo and now the sign. Onstad appears to have apostrophes on the brain. Not that I take issue with that. Misuse of an apostrophe should rank somewhere in the middle rings of the inferno, possibly there among falsifers of metal (aka Whitesnake).
westsider8 » neu1 years ago
Whoa, dude, no need to get personal. I mean, unless you're in Whitesnake?
rowboat » pro1 years ago
You totally just got called an imbecile for not liking Whitesnake. How come that shit never happens to me?
efurman » neu1 years ago
Dethklok has never even heard of Whitesnake.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
(and, Promise kept!)
skiddysmith » neu1 years ago
like a drifter i was born to walk alone
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
I have forwarded this message to Manowar. You have several hours to live, make good use of them.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
ghostlystate » neu1 years ago
You can't like metal and call someone an imbecile. It's like setting a trampoline on its side, right in the middle of the rock-throwing range in front of your glass house.
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
Dude, have you heard the new Imbecile album? Slays.
eatmorekix » neu1 years ago
Care to repeat that?
[IMGS OFF]
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
He is so unamused.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
fineoakstructure » neu1 years ago
Damn, mock that up with a golden sheen behind him, cut the pic off at the shoulders and you got yourself Varghamagarky
foetus_punch » neu1 years ago
I think I know that dude. I think I hate that dude.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
I don't know him, but I think I hate him.
He's the reason for my misery.
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
The filename of the image provided me with the dude's name, and the interweb told me more about him. Now I wish I knew much less about him.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Sort of the opposite of Tommy James and the Shondells' lament?
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Before I saw Whitesnake, I thought that was a ring of hell I had missed out- illegal metallurgists? Not unlike illegally practicing chiropractors or lawyers, I imagine.
farqussus » neu1 years ago
Isn't Whitesnake a disease of dogs? Like ringworm.
caboom » pro1 years ago
My knowledge of Spanish made this strip 22% more enjoyable
I don't think you should be allowed to own a business if your signs are not grammatically correct. Mistakes like this are becoming widespread enough as to be accepted into the lexicon.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
But if it is accepted, then that means that it is no longer wrong.
susurrus » neu1 years ago
If rape were accepted in a culture, would that make it any less wrong? No. People's ignorance and/or apathy is raping English. Sure, the language will live on after it's done, but there will always be that feeling you can't wash off.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
I wasn't talking about moral relativism, but about linguitic change. There are a lot of things that we say that used to be considered wrong(as in incorrect), but now is considered okay. I wasn't making a moral statement there.
It is grammatical if enough people use it.
susurrus » neu1 years ago
It was a joke. I get what you're saying in that language changes over time, but there is good change and bad change. The changes that are happening to the language are happening due to lack of knowledge or people not giving a shit about their language. These are not changes that are coming up naturally, people are just disregarding any sort of convention.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
No, that's what I'm saying. I think that a lot, if not all, of the changes that happened naturally happened because of people defying convention.
Contractions used to be slang once. Now they are accepted in everything except formal papers.
I still don't agree with it, however. This is because I'm afraid of change.
I'll expand on this more to-morrow.
stereo » neu1 years ago
I hear one of the characters on Questionable Content does not use contractions in his or her or its speech.
Seriously, can we repeal that convention whereby "they" is only allowed to refer to multiple people? The lack of a proper singular non gender specific pronoun makes me angry.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
That annoys me too.
And Facebook does it.
I just say "it".
(not really)
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
What really pisses up my leg is that facebook uses "they" to refer to a single person whose gender is right on their profile/. "Social networking" sites are obviously only free in exchange for tons of clandestine data mining, so don't fucking act like you don't know! I'm softening on the singular "they" thing, but I prefer to just switch between "he" and "she". It's funny how shocked people are to hear someone simply say "she" when referring to a non-specific singular person.
loneal » neu1 years ago
That's because dudes are the default gender and ladies are a special case. Even though women make up slightly more than 50% of the world's population.
I like "they" because for me, gender equality trumps grammar. I wish there were a grammatically correct version, though. That "ze" and "hir" stuff is pretty interesting, but it's not widespread enough for me to use without getting stares even more incredulous than the non-specific-she stares.
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
True, but "ze" and "hir" aren't gender-neutral as far as I understand them; they're used by some transgendered people who feel they fit their non male/female gender identity. Because of that, they're poor selections for a universal gender-neutral pronoun. That's one of the attractions of the "yo" phenomenon I wrote about a bit further down. I sympathize with your position that gender equality trumps grammatical accuracy, but I have to admit my inner pro-feminist is still duking it out with my inner grammarian.
loneal » neu1 years ago
Yeah that is the main use of "ze" and "hir" right now, but I think that's simply because even the people who are queer and feminist and shit still usually identify as a certain gender. There's no reason "ze" and "hir" wouldn't find greater use in a society where gender became less important.
I also just read this book where they used "person" instead of he or she and "per" instead of him or her, which I thought was kinda cool.
And that "yo" stuff is pretty cool, too! Any effort toward gender equality is pretty cool as far as I'm concerned.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Why can't we just speak German? German's got masculine, feminine and neuter pronouns, which would solve our problems. Of course, there is no logic to the assignment of these pronouns, but hey, ya take the bad with the good.
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
I would speak German, but I would rather stage an [sic] sexual antic with you.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Sie oder du? LOLOL
farqussus » neu1 years ago
Don't LOL out loud. That is another thing that should not become a thing.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Well I didn't.
farqussus » neu1 years ago
What was the extra OL for then?
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Laughing...or lying??
farqussus » neu1 years ago
Touche, cat yelling at a chicken, touche.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I'm nice on water, but I'm rude on Assetbar.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Therefore, water does not equal Assetbar.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I always thought Assetbar was something like Achewater anyway.
fineoakstructure » neu1 years ago
Yes, everybody: if you must LOL, please LOL in your room.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Actually, in embryonic development, female is the default gender. If a fetus that is genetically male (XY) fails to secrete just one particular hormone, it will develop a uterus, vagina, and cervix.
loneal » neu1 years ago
Yes, but somehow men are seen as the default gender in society, which is why people get weirded out when fuckyoufriday uses "she" instead of "he" for a general singular pronoun.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Yea, a lot of the philosophy papers I read specifically use "she" as a general/neutral pronoun. But I don't think this is an improvement - it strikes me as a contrived attempt at political correctness and calls obvious attention to the problem. I would gladly use 'they' if my professors considered it correct; until then I will continue to use 'he' precisely on the basis that it comes naturally and it's what I've absorbed reading everyone from Plato to Oscar Wilde.
loneal » neu1 years ago
Interestingly, when I was at Oxford, I used "he or she" in a paper, and my tutor was like, "Why don't you just use 'they'?" He was confused that I didn't think it was proper English.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
I will counter this with the fact women have less active genetic material. One of the Xs in the last chromosome pair floats off and does nothing. We lads get to use all our DNA
mysogynista » con1 years ago
wrong
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Not wrong. Look up Barr bodies somewhere reliable. Women have 45 functional chromosomes, and one inactive in the Barr body attached to the side of the nucleus. You can see it for yourself if you have the right stain and a really good microscope.
falseprophet » pro1 years ago
[IMGS OFF]
Something tells me there's quite a few things inactive in the Barr body.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Not quite correct; it doesn't float off. Rather, methyl groups are attached to the histone (protein that holds DNA together), which has the effect of severely reducing expression. The main reason for this is that the Y chromosome has very little genetic material; in order for both males and females to be functional, there has to be some sort of equalization.
One cool effect of x-inactivation is that it doesn't happen until after a few cell divisions, so that one x can be active in one patch of cells and another can express a different x. Calico cats are a result of this (they get weird patches of colors.)
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Unfortunately, we mainly use it for watching porn and eating tacos.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
featurelessvoid » neu1 years ago
Translation: "Cliques may make you 50% more popular, but daybreak steals 20% of that," says ol' handyman. "Reconsider that, walrus."
Commentary:
In this passage, Gladiator Rex reflects on a pivotal moment in his youth.
As he paced through the streets, contemplating the devil's offer to make him beautiful and popular for the night of the ball, Glad ran into the village handyman, who gave him the best advice any lad had ever received.
Glad turned down the devil's offer, went to the ball dressed in his normal rags, and was teased by the popular children. He sneaked outside, removed the rags, doused them in kerosene, and used them to set the building ablaze. As the partygoers' screams filled the night, and Glad ran away as fast as his legs could carry him, he heard the handyman's voice whispering in his head: "That'll do, walrus. That'll do."
gowerski » neu1 years ago
actual translation: chicks may make up 50% of the population but their brains are still 20%of the size of a mans. reconcile that, waitress
explodingbat » neu1 years ago
man's
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
So, men's brains are reportedly five times the size of the plus-or-minus three pounds of brain your average female has? Wow, a realfat head might believe it!
tekende » pro1 years ago
gladi8orrex makes waitress sound like the coldest insult there ever was.
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
Some of these grammar rules being put forth here seem needlessly picky. What is everyone's opinion on dialectic speech? For instance, the use of "ax" instead of "ask" or "runnin'" instead of "running" or "cah" instead of "car"?
I don't have any problem with it, personally. As long as someone's intended speech is clear, that is, what they're getting at, I see no problem with grammar inaccuracies or any other conventional language error.
I feel that language is not some stasis rock, it's something that evolves and changes over time, along with the people who speak it. While it is funny when people make awful mistakes, I think we all have to acknowledge that improper grammar does not necessarily make someone an idiot, and getting angry about words being used in a different manner than was intended in the 1700s is like yelling at the tide to stop coming towards you.
Either we speak the languages of today, or we remain mute.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
I've spoken here before about accents and whatnot (my first post, as a matter of fact). I speak with a dialect (the stereotypical New York accent) and I probably more often than not say "ax" and other things, but the words I'm saying, say if they were written down, are in pretty dern good English, and I think that's more than enough (I also happen to be an English major). I throw in little flourishes in my speech, which are a result of my parents and aunts and uncles ("yous" is my favorite, albeit least conscious), but I think we all do, and it's forgivable.
irondave » neu1 years ago
[quote]and it's forgivable[quote]
Fahgeddabotit!
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Oops. I mean:
OH WHAT DA FUCK IS DIS SHIT I MADE A SPELLIN ERA?!
mmax » neu1 years ago
at first I assumed that was um... never mind...
so.. how many of you are there on this thing anyway? How do you keep track of who's saying what to who?
*taps microphone* is this thing on?
falseprophet » neu1 years ago
The way we are figuring out who is saying what to whom is by using the Firefox browser, having the Greasemonkey application, and also downloading a script called assetbarista.
Welcome to the New Jerusalem, friend.
mmax » pro1 years ago
hey that is pretty neat and futuristic man. Can there also be a plugin that allows me to store my MP3s and makes assetbar to do my taxes? It can't be too far away. I am loving this future!
pogo » neu1 years ago
Welcome Headroom. That was a great show, mostly because of the woman, Amanda Payne?
kamet » neu1 years ago
I totally went as Max Headroom for Halloween when I was a kid.
octafish » neu1 years ago
Asking is just polite demanding.
loneal » neu1 years ago
For spoken English (or, like, message-board English), I pretty much think everything goes. Sometimes it is hilarious and/or annoying when people use a word that has a specific definition when they mean to use another word with a specific definition. But I am down with accents and ain't and y'all and whatever. Non-standard forms of English usually have their own internal rules, and slang is a form of playing with language, not raping it.
Written English requires more adherence to standard formal grammar. I am not a huge stickler about ending sentences with prepositions and shit, but for me to take a newspaper article or an academic paper seriously, it has to be written in fairly standard English.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Agreed about articles and whatnot. But you brought up a good point about message-board English. Everyone on this site takes linguistic cues from a cat that doesn't use punctuation, and beyond that, has more vernacular chops than J. D. Salinger. This site above most should be excused for all our "hell of"s and "all such as"s.
perilon » pro1 years ago
Thank you, you make my point(s) more succinctly than I do.
sardoniclaconic » neu1 years ago
Some linguistic scholars consider ebonics almost a separate language, with its own legitimate grammar system. Some even think it is an improvement on standard English. If you're interested in this, check out Steven Pinker's book The Language Instinct.
sardoniclaconic » neu1 years ago
*grammatical system
drskradley » neu1 years ago
FUCK YOU ALL for not being on Australian time, and therefore having all the good conversations while I'm asleep.
I'm not commenting on this now. I'm waaaaay too lazy to read all that you're talking about. This part is my fault.
I'm gonna go play Pandemic instead. Hopefully this time Madagascar won't be the last surviving place for humanity.
awko » neu1 years ago
Madagascar can eat my dick. Who the fuck closes their ports at the first sign of a cold?
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Your mother?
gmm » neu1 years ago
I fucking KNOW. Fuck those assholes. Stupid Madagascar. [Is an internet game making us racist? I hope not. Pandemic 2 is addictive as hell]
sje46 » neu1 years ago
Listen to what it is saying.
It does not want to rape you to death, but it will if it has to.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Son!!!
sje46 » neu1 years ago
Hi!
What's wrong, Dad?
daidai » neu1 years ago
I just realize I made that sound ambiguous.
I don't like saying "his or her" as in
Everyone should clean his or her toilet.
(It would be improper to say "their")
I am not opposed to the words "his" or "her".
That would be silly.
skiddysmith » neu1 years ago
i think the lames are in regards to the "raping someone to death..." part of your previous post.
daidai » neu1 years ago
What? But that isn't offensive OR unusual?
boredom_man » neu1 years ago
Skiddysmith had to explain this to you, Daidai. And I have been unable to defecate since 2002. Coincedence?
farqussus » neu1 years ago
No-one knows what a coincedence is, so probably not.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
It's when one thing coincedes with another. Duh.
spazdor » neu1 years ago
The lack of a proper singular non gender specific pronoun
The word "it" has exactly the properties you describe.
Yes, yes, we find the use of "it" on people to be dehumanizing, but only because we're used to thinking of people as gendered and objects as ungendered. In French or German, the pronouns don't have such connotative power because even tables and chairs are given genders!
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Yet, in French they have a perfectly good neutral pronoun for use on people: "on" literal means "one", and is always used in third person sigular conjugations, but can be used in place of I, You (singular & plural), He, She and We, depending on context: "On fait qu'on peut" means "One does what one can", but could replace "I do what I can", "you do what you can", "we do what we can", etc.
Transgender types often make exclusive use of "on" to refer to themselves and other Transgenders.
Despite this relatively useful neutral gender pronoun, one of the worst things you can call another man in France is "P.D." (said just like "payday"), which is a euphemistic abbreviation of a technical term for a homosexual.
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
anyone heard/read about the "yo" phenomenon in the Baltimore public school system? These kids spontaneously started using "yo" as a gender-neutral third person singular. I'd be pleased if this really caught on.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
That sounds glorious.
"When asked how these young students were able to inject more gender equity into the English language, Troyer said, 'Maybe they just invented a new pronoun because they didn%u2019t know that they couldn%u2019t.'"
God damn, that is some Chauncey Gardiner shit.
cpnglxynchos » neu1 years ago
this 'maybe' she speaks of makes me wonder if isn't the teacher getting taught. i'm sure skrad would have something to say about that.
plus also, stating that "they didn't know that they couldn't" puts another bee in my bonnet. since when was one unable to invent a new word? waiting for the wankers at Webster's to agree to toss something in with McJob (seriously?) and that new verb 'google'...doesn't seem to be worth the time.
then again, languages are always changing. i read it in a book once upon a time.
aperson » neu1 years ago
I am pretty certain the teacher is saying "hey, maybe these kids' creativity just burst out because The Man forgot to tell them they weren't allowed to be creative".
cpnglxynchos » neu1 years ago
yeah, i'll take that.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
She meant they didn't know they couldn't use Yo as a pronoun, I think. I'm not sure. Words can be created all the time, but changes to grammar are harder to do. It's more clear in the article.
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
You know, Dave, sometimes when I find I have a bee in my bonnet, it's best if I just take my hat off.
kickstart » neu1 years ago
Spiny Norman: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
spinynorman » neu1 years ago
...and that young man's name was Richard. Nixon.
pogo » neu1 years ago
"Yo" is "I" in Spanish, and those Baltimore kids are wack.
reverendtmac » neu1 years ago
That's really interesting...if only because after some research of my own*, I thought it was a derogatory term used by the police to describe your average banger. Same way they use "slouch". I never noticed the kids using it, but now that I think back...
* research only consisted of every episode of The Wire and some of David Simon's books
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Well, from what I know of French (which admittedly isn't much) "on" is pretty much exactly equivalent to "one," which means that most people wouldn't use it as a gender-neutral pronoun in everyday speech. People sometimes use "one" in English to refer to themselves, but that seems to be considered pretentious and awkward.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
I've quite frequently used "one" as a replacement for the usual "you" where "man" would be used in German or "on" would be used in French. And then I've quite frequently glared unremittingly at those who give me funny looks.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Also, few things ire me more than when, usually in an effort to mockingly emulate some upperclassman, someone uses "one" in place of "I".
That's not how it works, peasant.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
Can one give an example of that please?
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
One indeed... could.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
This is worth reading in its entirety, but I will excerpt it here:
"To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay."
Hahahaha oh my God I'm going to use that last sentence. Holy crap that's good. See, THAT is a wordsmith.
Plus, I was kidding when I suggested we use German. I'm just learning it, so I have it on the mind.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Oh God, Mark Twain made me lol:
"For instance, the same sound, sie, means you, and it means she, and it means her, and it means it, and it means they, and it means them. Think of the ragged poverty of a language which has to make one word do the work of six -- and a poor little weak thing of only three letters at that. But mainly, think of the exasperation of never knowing which of these meanings the speaker is trying to convey. This explains why, whenever a person says sie to me, I generally try to kill him, if a stranger."
invidious » neu1 years ago
v-chubby for Mr. Twain. I took four years of German in high school, and that whole essay cracked my shit up.
cpnglxynchos » neu1 years ago
"In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did succeed in making those idiots understand their language."
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Funny. I've never had a problem. They just don't want to believe I'm American. Apparently, it is abjectly impossible to be American and speak a proper French. Who knew?
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Gender in language, realistically, means jack shit. It doesn't represent "gender" as we know it - it's just that when different dialects are developing into languages, the easiest non-adjective modifiers that come to hand when describing something are the ones we already have at least two of: sex. It's being economical with ones speaking, more than anything - something you can't hold against any language, as it is the essence of evolution.
Prime example: in some African languages, there can be up to 12 different gender modifiers. Now, in our linguistic class, we tried - we really did - but even after you bring in all the various diaspora of gender and sex classification, you struggle to get up to 12. And I doubt that there'd be a large enough amount of transvestites or post-op trannies in small African tribes to necessitate a gender modifier in non-related nouns for the common language, anyway.
stereo » neu1 years ago
My first thought is that they'd be categories like horses have, where age/sexual status come into it, as they do kinda affect who you are. In that case you can multiply pre-pubescent, mature, past fertile, or unknown, by male, female, and both(/neuter), giving 12 different options.
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Yeah yeah I suppose blah blah blah, REGARDLESS, the point stands: language genders simply employ the use of sexual genders etc because they are a useful enough analogy for what they are meaning to modify. Not a perfect one, nor do they generally have any meaning beyond just keeping the communication flowing well.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Was there a catagory for "married with children, but on the down-low"?
hamscout » neu1 years ago
Bill Clinton?
stereo » neu1 years ago
Yeah, for some reason I've always thought of "it" as meaning something which is not male or female, rather than unknown.
I don't know if it's all that easy to change the way people speak English, I'd be fine with either making "it" less specific than people generally consider it, or using another word (xe, on, yo, ze, they, etc.).
I also appreciate French's tu, a purely singular "you" but from what I gather it's more informal than "vous" which is closer in usage to the English "you".
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
No, the English 'you' is closer to the informal usage, though it encompasses both. A lot of European languages have two second-person pronouns. In Russian (vi) and French (vous), the plural "you" is also used for the formal singular "you". In Spanish, they use "usted", which is conjugated like the third person.
loneal » neu1 years ago
And in Hebrew there is a male "you" and a female "you." I would not like to be a trans person in Israel.
gormster » neu1 years ago
There are a million other reasons to not be trans in Israel, one of which is they will kill you.
loneal » neu1 years ago
That sounds like...an over-generalization.
boredom_man » neu1 years ago
eh... granted my entire understanding of gay issues in Israel is from Eytan Fox films, but still, are you sure about that, Gormster? I'm lookin' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_people_from_Israel and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_International ...
drskradley » neu1 years ago
Boredom_man got there before me, and all I had to do was scroll down two posts.
drskradley » neu1 years ago
I think if one was a Middle Easterner and LGBT of any kind, you'd wanna live in Israel. Word is they're the most tolerant place for that sorta thing in all the Middle East. Even slightly more than Turkey! And they let frikkin' anythin' fly.
Still, regardless of one's persuasion, I wouldn't really want to live in the Middle East. Except Turkey - that place just seems like a party.
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
Believe it or not it's possible and legal to get a sex-change operation in Iran.
It's still dangerous, illegal or potentially fatal to be gay, or even a cross-dresser, but apparently their interpretation of the Koran does allow for gender reassignment surgery.
It's at odds with the image we're constantly fed of those evil, mullah-crazed Iranians, but that's hardly surprising.
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
I thought English was pretty unusual in that it has lost its plural "you".
We used to have "thee" and "thou", but they morphed into the multipurpose "you".
Some parts of the English-speaking world have come up with substitutes such as "youse" and "y'all".
Some regard these as mutilations of English, but they seem like examples of useful colloquialism - filling a gap in the language, rather than simply mangling a word out of laziness or ignorance.
aperson » neu1 years ago
And in some places (as I understand it) y'alls is the plural of y'all which has come to mean you singular.
Seems like second person plurals have a tendency to degenerate into singular usage, for some reason.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Thee and thou aren't singular and plural variants. I think thee is possessive.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Thine is possessive, thou and thee are nominative and accusative respectively.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Ah. Well I was half right.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
"Thee" is the informal 2nd person pronoun. "You" is the formal pronoun. They are comparative to "thee" and "usted" in Spanish. However, "thee" has fallen out of usage.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
I think you mean "tu" and "usted" in Spanish.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
Thou art right. Oops.
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
I'm a little confused, I guess.
I meant (letting wiki do the talking) "Early Modern English distinguished between the plural you and the singular thou."
The conflation of ye=you/ye=the due to the letter 'thorn' also messes with my mind.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
OK. Talkin' French without le Chat?
French Tu-Toi form is singular second person, but is further modified by never being used for a person of higher rank (except God or a close family member like Daddy) or an unknown person. Vous-votre form is plural second person, so it is always used if more than one "you" is being addressed, but is also used where tu-toi is too familiar. In many parts of France, you will only use the Tu-toi form if A) you are speaking to a clearly social inferior such as a child, B) you have been tu-toi'ed by the other speaker, and even then it might be wise only after C) you've gotten permission.
Historically, thou-thee form in English is equivalent to tu-toi, and vous is the actual origin of English "You". Of course, today one only finds thou-thee in use among closed religious societies (like the Amish) or in religious context amoung those who just like the King James version better. So, for all intents and purposes, You is the only You Enlgish has for plural vs. singular, formal vs. familiar use.
German uses the third person plural "Se" for a formal you.
Spanish uses "usted" (conjugated third person singular) for formal second person singular and "ustedes" (conjugated third person plural) for formal second person plural.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Well reiterated.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Yeah. I should have kept reading below. But I can't take it back now!
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
German third person plural is "sie."
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Right you are. I wish it was the only spelling error above.
pogo » neu1 years ago
One wonders how people forgot about "one."
autrepoupee » neu1 years ago
The plight of the fourteen year old sasspants who uses the word "one" in such a sense will never be forgotten. The beatings, oh the merciless beatings.
One may never f o r g e t . . .
tekende » neu1 years ago
Good. Lord. And I thought the abortion debate was bad. This is excruciating.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
I will buy you beers until you no longer notice these gawdawful threads Tekende. I will buy you that much beer for pointing this out.
fineoakstructure » neu1 years ago
Tekende is coming in on a tear today. Good for him.
perilon » neu1 years ago
I will arbite this. I am qualified.
Language change is natural. If you want to ascribe some of it to people being lazy or ignorant about standard usage, fine, but it's still going to happen. And although there are some conventions - like the correct use of apostrophes - that everyone agrees ought to be followed, many linguistic prescriptions are bunk. By bunk I mean that they're not actually followed in writing or casual speech consistently, even by everyone who propounds them.
There comes a time in any linguistic change process where some people will claim a certain usage is right, some claim it to be wrong, and many are in the middle. In the case of apostrophes, the standard rules apply, so use them right! But what's the last time you cooked dinner wearing a napron and them set the apkins on the table? Those words were once correct, and the change was due to "laziness" - people putting the "n" in the wrong place when saying "an apron" and "a napkin" - but the line has long since been crossed beyond which our current forms are standard. Is it rape, a crime against the language, to say the words we now use? No, and the world has not exploded! No one gives half a damn!
The point is: Who the hell is anyone to judge linguistic "errors" and those who commit them as irremeably Satanic? At best, you're a copy editor legitimately correcting dumb mistakes before public viewing of material. At worst, you've actually got little sense of the history of English or the reasons behind many of our so-called rules. Well, worse than that, you're just saying "Ha ha, you're a cretin and an idiot and I'm smarter than you," which is pretty nasty behavior.
I used to care about bad apostrophes! Still do! But I learned to save my actual feelings for things that matter in life.
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
Wise words well stated.
However, I still regard Merriam Webster as a cheap little (gender neutral) whore of a dictionary for including words like 'irregardless' with the caveat that 'some' regard it as an error. The upshot of this is that the Firefox's spell-check recognises 'irregardless' and refuses to underline it in red.
It's a slippery slope.
More seriously, misuse of words - such as using 'enormity' as a form of 'enormous' - does degrade the language by adding ambiguity and diluting the meaning of a handy word.
This strip gets a five for Cornelius alone.
Incidentally, Tina's use of "must of" sparked a similar debate last week. What with her behaviour during Ray's emergency and Beef's assessment of her afterwards, I think Onstad must of used the phrase to mark Tina as being of Low Mind.
perilon » neu1 years ago
In the case of words like "enormity" not meaning "enormousness" and (let's say) "noisome" not meaning noisy, and so on, I certainly agree that it's cool to know the "true" (historical) meanings and use them right. Having a big vocabulary is the Stuff! I would even say, in general, that people oughtn't to use "big" words if they are unsure of what they mean. Of course, everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and also, if one has only ever heard/seen "enormity" in the context of the size of something, how can one be blamed for using it wrong? Is it really the responsibility of everyone who knows the truth about certain word meanings, usage, etc. to cram it down the throats of those who don't? (Even if not, I admit it can be tempting, if rude.) Also, not all who make mistakes are mistaken; I for one sure enjoy sometimes speaking non-standardly (say, double negatives), for the greater range of expression it offers.
In general, let's keep the true meaning of words around for as long as we can - as long as there's a chance other people will know what we're saying - because that's cool! But when a grammar rule is ancient history ("never end a sentence with a preposition" is someone's stupid idea of applying Latin rules to English, and has never been followed consistently by anyone in the history of our language), or impossibly obscure, drop it. I don't expect anyone to think that "cathode" ought to mean "the way down," even though that's the literal meaning in Greek; neither should someone bug the flip out if I say "mis-chee-vi-ous" instead of "mis-che-vous." To all the talk among the "educated" about shooting and murdering those who speak differently than they do - grammar rage - I say, chill a bit. Live and let live. I'll go on saying the room was noisome and mean it was stinky, you'll go on thinking I meant it was loud, I'll sit here being right and you'll be wrong, and the world will go on.
nice-on-water » neu1 years ago
Look out, a Great Vowel Shift!!! SWOOSH
But seriously, I think people take the narrow, short-term history approach at language, and you're logically taking the long-term. But it makes sense on both sides: people want to be correct in their time, obviously. If ending a sentence with "at" is wrong now, they want to follow the rules. When in 500 years that might be negligible when English becomes something else, things will be different. So, I don't know, that's language...? I follow the current rules is all I can say.
sje46 » neu1 years ago
Using "at" at the end of a sentence? That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!
Seriously, that rule has no purpose, and was made to make English more Latinate.
I think.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Snotty overeducated snob lady walks into a redneck bar. Hick walks up and says "You look nice, where you from?" She answers "I'm from a place where people don't end their sentences with prepositions." The look looks embarrassed and apologizes. "I'm sorry, let me try again. Where you from, bitch?"
gmm » neu1 years ago
I prefer the version of this joke that is about Harvard and isn't misogynistic
cracklewater » neu1 years ago
The reason that I have particular scorn for the misuse of 'enormity' is that it's very rarely used or misused in conversation.
The people who do misuse it in writing or speaking are mainly journalists, or some other class of folks who are paid for their ability to write and/or speak words and thus should know better. They can be blamed for using 'enormity' wrongly, as well as for other people (those in your example) doing so as well.
Of course, there's a big difference between speaking and writing when it comes to the development of language. Colloquial English can change with amazing rapidity, but the fact that the spoken language is anchored to a fairly strict (if irregular) set of rules for the written means that it doesn't mutate so rapidly that it becomes unintelligible a few generations or centuries down the line.
We can still read Shakespeare and even Chaucer with relative ease because of this. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Shakespeare's plays would have been much harder to understand when performed in Elizabethan English.
Now that i think of it, I don't think I ever grumble or act the prick about spoken English of any stripe. It's only mistakes in writing (and almost always in writing that's intended for public display) that actually get my angry-glands juiced.
layzerblade » neu7 months ago
I think fair's fair with "enormity". The fact is, it's just a less awkward word than "enormousness", and 99% of people construe it to mean "the noun form of enormous". Apparently, use in a sense other than "vast wickedness" dates back at least to Samuel Richardson's Clarissa, published in 1748. If you want to be semantically safe, you can make sure to use it to describe only figurative enormousness -- "the enormity of the task before us" would be better than "the enormity of the elephant".
fuckyoufriday » neu1 years ago
"Irremeably". Well, I learned my word for the day! Now I can go back to sleep. (sleeps)
turnabout » neu1 years ago
Fuck you and fuck descriptivism. You don't understand what you're "studying."
RIP DFW while we're at it.
foetus_punch » neu1 years ago
sje46, thank you so damn much. I have had this argument so many times. God damn sticklers should damn well know that the evolution of language is a disturbingly natural process that occurs through making mistakes repeatedly. Gahd.
mystkmanat » neu1 years ago
That was a joke? You're rockin' some rough chuckles these days.
efurman » neu1 years ago
You mean like "Flammable"? Ugh... (shakes head)
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
I get that you're just going with the descriptive rather than prescriptive view of language, but that doesn't mean "anything goes". Some linguistic changes are merely changes of preference and that's fine. But complexity and precision are integral parts of a language. In this case, the misuse of the apostrophe makes it impossible to distinguish between plural, singular possessive, and plural possessive. When I first saw that sign, I thought "The Window Guy's what?" There is a similar problem with a lot of the slang that people are trying to get accepted as valid dialects - for example, saying "he done did this" obliterates any possible distinction between the simple past, present perfect, and pluperfect tenses. Sure, people can get by with day-to-day communication using these simplified and bastardized forms, but having them ingrained will prevent them from being able to either process or express more complex and precise information. There's a reason that incorrect usage and slang are prevalent mainly among economically disadvantaged groups.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
I ain't got's no idea's what you's gettin' all on 'bout here's mista'. I's only axe's it fo' sum change.
perilon » neu1 years ago
When grammatical format of a language (dialect, whatever) does not permit information to be expressed using some particular tense or aspect or whatever, one can express it a different way! Do you ever feel the lack of a standard future imperative construction in English? No, because you can say things periphrastically, like "Go to the store and buy me some milk" to convey the same thing. Do you feel impoverished and unable to express yourself well because of the lack of this form? No.
Of course having standards for Standard English is good, and of course some linguistic change obscures distinctions which once were there (in linguistic terminology, making distinctions "opaque"), but that has happened a billion times in the evolution of all the world's languages. What happens is, new ways of making distinctions evolve. Languages, contrary to many people's perceptions, don't go from being very complex and expressive to being lackluster and worthless for communication. It's all in what you make of the language you have available.
falseprophet » pro1 years ago
There's a color comic strip I once saw where a dude is being a dick about terms and Barack Obama shows up like a superhero and explains the evolution of language to him but I can't find it for the life of me.
Whosoever finds it will receive ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
irondave » neu1 years ago
That was actually an edition of Hardball.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
breastman » neu1 years ago
Move to France.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Susurrus said: "If rape were accepted in a culture, would that make it any less wrong? No."
Two thoughts arose immediately: "So what is it with taxes these days?" and "What if it isn't about right vs. wrong, but just about what works?" No matter how legal or accepted rape becomes, it just won't work.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Many ancient cultures would beg to differ.
daidai » neu1 years ago
Lookin' at you, Vikings. With your- with your pointy hats.
hedonismbot » neu1 years ago
Look, those villagers were asking for it.
-Hedonismbot, 75% swede
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Rape doesn't work, regardless of culture, legality or social acceptance. It is an invalidation of someone's essential being. That has no workability. Please get that I am not saying it is "right" or "wrong" or "moral" or "immoral". I make no such claim and have no such stand. What is moral changes in time. What works doesn't. Things that dehumanize don't work. Not really. Not in the big picture.
loneal » neu1 years ago
I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone more against rape than I am, but I do not understand what you mean by saying it "doesn't work." Toward what end does it "not work"? The point of rape is to dehumanize and degrade, and in that respect it "works" very well.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Things that dehumanize and degrade have no workability to them. It may be effective towards these ends (and so in the use of venacular it "works"). That's not the use of the word I am making. It simply doesn't work if it dehumanizes or degrades. Period. Don't understand it, just get it.
loneal » neu1 years ago
I disagree with your semantics and will not be subscribing to your newsletter.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Nothing wrong there. I thank you for considering my views. (You're welcome to give them any additional thought you'd like, or not.)
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
I think I get it. For something to "work" means that it achieves the desired ends. Lechatbotte's worldview, informed as it is by inspirational speakers, simply cannot accommodate the idea that some people can actually desire to dehumanize and degrade others because everyone is actually good and special inside, so people that do bad things don't really want to do them. At the same time, he doesn't want to use words like "moral", since that would be too reminiscent of oppressive organized religion and constrictive rationalistic Western philosophy. So instead, he redefines the word "work" in a slippery way and exhorts you not to subject it to logical analysis but just 'get it' on some spiritual level.
I don't have anything against lechatbotte, but sloppy philosophy just offends me on a deeply personal level. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
thegoblins » neu1 years ago
Sloppy philosophy just doesn't work.
falseprophet » neu1 years ago
Quote:
When will people learn? Democracy just doesn't work.
oneshotnothing » neu1 years ago
until i read this post, i always thought lechatbotte was a woman, and that he was also aiu. actually, i think everyone that's not me is aiu.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
This is a common problem. Talk to Pogo.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Hey Acheman! So, let me submit that you haven't fully gotten me, but I'm not surprised.
So: I completely get that all some folks are up to in thier lives is to dehumanize and degrade others, and that they actually (gasp!) want to do these things. It destroys workability in their lives, but how many people have you known who had lives that really worked?
Let me get really bold and possibly offensive here: Not only is that what some people are up to, I DON'T KNOW A SOUL LIVING who hasn't spent at least a major part of their lives dehumanizing and degrading others!
Your assumption is that my failure to give in completely to cynacism and resignation comes from some sort of "motivational-speaker" (hear "elevator music" of human speech) understanding of human nature. Quite the contrary! I really get that basic, dirty, unmentionable aspect of human nature that we would rather club someone to death than be proven wrong! Man, I get it! I just don't make it mean anything.
It is only in the face of this reality of what it is to be human that a selfish asshole like me can choose to be generous and kind! (And, I still don't make it mean anything.)
You find my philosophy sloppy only because you don't get it fully enough to get it. Nothing wrong with that! Just try on that there's more here than meets the eye.
The people in life who get to have full understanding of things are the ones who are sitting there doing nothing but watching.
When you watch a game of tag, you can see everything, and criticize those who get tagged. But when you are actually in the game, playing all out, you don't have time for understanding! You have to "get" as best you can where each of the players are, and do your best not to be or stay "it". The result is not only that you have more fun than the spectator, you also really have gotten something about that game that no spectator will ever have. You "get" it, and it's better than any understanding it could be!
You can be as logical as you like (I wasted a huge amount of my life in such persuits), but no spectator has the impact on the outcome of a game of tag that a below-average participant has. He's in the game!
Try it on, see what fits.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Cute! I'll bet Kate loves it when you talk that way!
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
When I say "Cute!" it means I really found it to be amusing. When I say "Cute." it is much less commited.
Sometimes the only way to break with what you may otherwise automatically hear is to alter the structure just lightly enough to have be heard. Quotes do that. I pretty sure that it had nothing to do with being or seeming sagacious, as I am only that in a joke!
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
Well, you said it's not a matter of what's right or wrong, but what "works", which could only be taken to mean allowing a society to function on a long-term basis. But then you redefined workability so as to make it indistinguishable from what people usually call morality. That's some pretty convoluted word usage right there.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
What works is independant of time and place. Morality is always shifting. Things that were moral a hundred years ago in Africa don't fit four hundred years ago in Norway.
But what works always does, always has, always will - and never comes from a context of valid vs. invalid, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral.
All of those are part of the context most people live in: "There is something wrong here, and it needs to be fixed."
What if there isn't anything wrong? What if it's just the way it should be? And shouldn't be? What if instead of trying to fix and change, we just did things - things that work - because we choose them, not to get somewhere, but just because we choose them.
Don't answer right away. Let that one sit with you for a day or two. Then get back to me.
achilleselbow » neu1 years ago
You are not making sense. You're just speaking in vague, roundabout cliches and koans. If there's nothing wrong and everything's just the way it should be, then rape and murder aren't wrong, because people choose them. Define what you mean by "works" and we can go from there.
alreadyinuse » neu1 years ago
HI ACHILLESELBOW
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Again, I never said there was anything wrong with rape and murder. Further, I never said there was anything right with not raping and not murdering. I said that rape (and murder if you wish) don't work. Just that simple. Anything that dehumanizes doesn't work.
When you find someone whose life is really working (not a function of fame, wealth or importance), you will see in play what I'm talking about.
But good luck with that! You won't find very many people with lives that really work. You will find a lot that pretend like they do, or who know they don't but hide it. We are absolutely addicted to looking good and being right!
aperson » neu1 years ago
LCB: if you're going to use words like 'work' in that unusual way (I've never seen that usage before), you need to explain what your implied and unstated goals are. i.e: what are the results for which things that 'work' are efficacious?
For example, if the goal is to obtain some other peoples' property, a campaign of ethnic cleansing can 'work' quite effectively. If the goal is to satisfy one's sexual urges in the absence of a consensual partner, then for some people (rapists) rape 'works'.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Aperson: I wish I had the skill to just give it to you! It doesn't happen that way. Here there is an effort to understand me that lacks the key to be able to. It has more to do with being then understanding, but keep grappling with it.
So, who you have to be to obtain other peoples' property thru ethnic cleansing is why it doesn't work. Who you have to be to satisfy your procreational urges thru rape is why it doesn't work. (Authentically, rape is typically more about power and control than a need for sex.)
Most people seek power to be and control. They feel like it gives them a standing when in fact they are standing on an illusion. Coercive power may get some results, but in the long run it doesn't work.
Authentic power blossoms in language, but is brought about by who you are being in speaking. It only works when what you say happens without compulsion or coercion. You say it, and it happens. Ghandi says "No more war", and then the war ends. It wasn't what he said, but who he was being. (Don't worry if it doens't all make sense. Just sit with it, and let it be awhile, and see what you get.)
aperson » neu1 years ago
Dear me, nothing personal but I really am at a loss on how to deal with a nice enough person spouting complete and utter nonsense. Could you be a bit more anti-social, so I can feel able to be honest with you? :)
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Be honest. It would be nearly impossible for you to offend me.
i_love_kate » neu1 years ago
Okay, I think I'd possibly be gleaning a bit more from your posts if I understood all this "working" actually referred to. What is this abstract but doubtless valuable element that one cannot achieve through rape, theft or the forceful attainment of political power? Is it happiness? Moral satisfaction? But no, this discussion isn't about morality. So what is it that defines whether an action "works" or not? If you would elaborate, I'm sure we would all tap our noses, nod our heads with a wry smile and say "Oh, that Chat Botte is one clever biscuit."
Does something by definition not "work" if it's unlikely that a protagonist in the Harry Potter books would do it? Or are you just labouring under the naive presumption that while all the successful rapists and dictators in the world may seem to be happy, they are all in fact suffering from deep, surpressed emotional turmoil that renders all of their evil actions less than worthwhile?
aperson » neu1 years ago
Thread closed.
The end! No moral.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Aperson: Will you be my pooka?
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
I_Love_Kate:
"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world, . . . you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."
If you really got who you are, who we are, and what it's all about, these questions would not concern you (as they don't concern me). Consider that the results you get in life is not equal to your experience of life. How often have we heard of depressed and suicidal people who appear to have it all, the absolute dream life, and yet whose experience of life is dismal? And then there are folks who don't appear to have anything like an ideal life, whose days are filled with mind numbing, back breaking work, but who are always content and happy. What do they know? Who are they that nothing brings them down?
In that vein, it really doesn't matter to me, or make a difference for me if you consider me a raving lunatic or a "clever biscuit". It's not about me! If I can impart any part of the contentment and workability of my life to others, that matters!
I am all about contributing to others' workability and ways of being, while accepting them just the ways they are, and just the ways they aren't.
So, sit with the ways of being in play here, and stop getting stuck on the doing. We always think that it's the doing that gets us the results we seek. I submit that doing only gets us the results we get. Other ways of being create new ways of doing, and hold the key to getting the results we want.
lechatbotte » neu1 years ago
Chubbied for the effort, and especially the final, absolutely authentic self-inspection.
Ya' know, I_Love_Kate, there's an interesting thing that humans do - I don't mean just some humans, but pretty much all of us: Whenever we are handed any piece of information or asertion, we take that brick to the "wall of knowledge" we've been building since birth, and find a likely spot to shove it and force it to fit. It doesn't matter if that brick belongs anywhere near our wall, we will not rest 'til we make it fit! That's what's happened here. I invite you to take the brick I gave you out of the wall (it doesn't belong where you put it), and just let it sit in your lap awhile. It's the beginning of a new wall for you! Some things take time. Just keep asking the questions. If I ever actually achieve "enlightenment", it will be from asking the right questions at the right times.
I'm no guru. I'm just another human being. I can lay claim to some awareness - and I'm glad to have it! I can share with you its possibilities, and point the way to i
Login to post a comment
(marked lame by littlecat, CaptainPeepers, Thorfinn, kenthegod, riotnrrd, chaesar, clembot)
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by randombeing, monstermovie, kylank, BPMead, riotnrrd, lamelliform, ActualTaunt, woodenteeth, gowerski, hardelicious, Footbullet)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
With a grain of truth inside.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Again, this is not to be pedantic, because fuck if I haven't posted some pictures of horses with dogs' heads and other shit. But far more often than not, we do manage to elevate this forum out of the usual genetic refuse of anonymous internet posting and it would be nice if we, somehow, managed to not be total dicks more often.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Let it be known, though, that a lot of traffic, probably, is from us Assetbarians checking new comments. However, traffic does not neccessarily mean more people buying from the store. It does mean more loyalty, however.
I do hope that the new forums will be made quickly, and is somewhat organized. We can just have two threads, even. One can be random, the other can be comic discussion. Because I really love the randomness of it all, but I can understand how people can be annoyed by a bunch of nonsense while other people just want discussion of the comic.
I thought that Assetbar was Onstad's creation. Isn't Achewood the only contractee? I can't find any others.
I guess I'll going to TOUAMB, or whatever it's called.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(Someone please post the grisly image of a misshapen fetal sheep.)
(please don't actually do this)
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by Belgand, ActualTaunt, Thirteen20WRX, whiteturtle, taiga81, eidolem)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Wind.
Dude.
Login to rate and reply to comments
It was most tranquil.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't know which throne would be more unstable. On the one hand, a male goats' weapons are rather obvious and they butt heads to fight for ze wimmenz. But on the other hand, rabbits can be pretty damned violent, if Watership Down tells us nothing else. Plus, there'd be so many of them ! And you're life-span would be much shorter.
Sure, King of the Rabbits would get hella more sexin' - but how much more than the average peasant? They're frikkin' rabbits, after all* And after a while it'd surely mean nothing anymore, sorta like if you were a pornstar: surely, a sure-fire way to ruin your sex life.
King of the Goats all the way.
*See also: King of the Squirrels. Totally unprotected and everything.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I am, however, a fan of the wonderful calibre of wrestling from the Far East. And upon spying on another forum an avatar of some kind of anime wherein a chick was giving a dude a Japanese Ocean Cyclone Suplex - I just had to have it .
Clip one.
Clip two.
That's right, boys: female wrestlers in Japan can actually wrestle. Not like the glorified pole dancers in the West. No, no: the moves that chicks made up 15 years ago, most white guys in Western Wrestling are still shit scared to do.
(for further knowledge as to why this move really hurts and most guys are too pussy to do it, realise that your arms are what breaks your fall and keeps you from being winded. From that height, you're gonna have a bad headache if you fuck it up just a bit.)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(Is it going to be lame?)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
/me clicks the launch party link and finds that the venue is a comic book store
Okay, I guess there will be nerds there.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(?)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't really think you're a puta, we're just on this spanish curse words thing.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Goddamn, work is boring.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
So if you want to stop reading about my penis, stop acting like a cat. Cool?
Login to rate and reply to comments
Lechatbotte: do the right thing.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by Spoon, Carpetbag, Jetbunny, Crater12, NumberKillinger, cuttlefish)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
This post has been brought to you by typing whith hmy eyjs closed and pre. Seriously eyelids are way too much work.tending I know hw to ue the backspace properly
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by CatJumpJohn, Spoon, Carpetbag)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
;0) ;0) ;0)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
So please everybody stop changing your avatars to pictures of dicks and assorted balls
(note for the future: this really was the way it went down on lo that September 13th)
(ah tee hee, hee)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I didn't say whether this was because it was good or bad or big or small or what. Just....overwhelming.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I'd have said so sooner, but part of having a life to really live means not being in front of the 'puter 24/7, so now is the soonest I've been able to get back with ya'.
Let me clean up a little with ya'. I'll start by saying what is so for me: I almost always enjoy reading your posts. Your voice and input have made a difference for me in reading comments before I even had an account here. You are one of the last folks here I would want to authentically offend.
My only question: If the "catty" remarks really put you off that much, why would you start with a threat, especially one as ineffectual as that, before you tried just sharing with me how that strikes you? Or was it just meant for humor?
Dude, help me understand.
Login to rate and reply to comments
By the way: >MEOW!<
Login to rate and reply to comments
Also I did mention that the cat thing was annoying a few days ago. But whatever.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
FUCK BBCODE
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I've finally caught up with all the comments I'd never looked at since the handfaceweekend when my inbox turned into a non-negotiable wasteland. I discovered that a couple of months back I gained a stalker by the name of atticusonline, who may or may not still be stalking me, and that an uncomfortable number of my posts seem to have been chubbied purely because of my Redhead Female status. Seriously. One time, someone said something, and I said "Ditto." and got like four chubbies for it! Come on, guys. Come on.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by JenH, loneal, tellumo)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by heccibiggs, Stonecrab, DougTheHead)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I like Cornelius's solution better though.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
: )
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
notebook scribble: "He's neurotic about grammatical errors/is the grammar police".
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I'll see about following up with photographs during the week so you can all visualize my point more clearly.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I think a period would be better. I'm not 100% sure.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
You're right, that would work better as a new sentence. Not that it would be functioning as a conjunction in that case.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
LOVE THEM
(sorry)
I go through phases of using them heavily or not at all, and whenever I do I think I use them too much.
Obviously I'm in a "not at all" phase.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Seriously, how does it make it sound more French? (What exactly is the sound of a semicolon?)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Oh Hoh Hohnh!
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Who's with me?
Turk?
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Opinion: I miss Oxford commas.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
forehead of each and every one of us.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Mr. Onstad, please clarify. I am five years old and do not know much about these things.
Login to rate and reply to comments
This is kind of like that. Except with a PENIS.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
[IMGS OFF]
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I miss it too.
But my sister has it on DVD!
(Come over and watch it with me)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by bigtom, farqussus, DarkerNorm, Boredom_Man)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
[IMGS OFF]
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
He's the reason for my misery.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by caboom, Spluff, mystkmanat)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
a billy goat!
Login to rate and reply to comments
Oh...wait...
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
It is grammatical if enough people use it.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Contractions used to be slang once. Now they are accepted in everything except formal papers.
I still don't agree with it, however. This is because I'm afraid of change.
I'll expand on this more to-morrow.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Seriously, can we repeal that convention whereby "they" is only allowed to refer to multiple people? The lack of a proper singular non gender specific pronoun makes me angry.
Login to rate and reply to comments
And Facebook does it.
I just say "it".
(not really)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I like "they" because for me, gender equality trumps grammar. I wish there were a grammatically correct version, though. That "ze" and "hir" stuff is pretty interesting, but it's not widespread enough for me to use without getting stares even more incredulous than the non-specific-she stares.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I also just read this book where they used "person" instead of he or she and "per" instead of him or her, which I thought was kinda cool.
And that "yo" stuff is pretty cool, too! Any effort toward gender equality is pretty cool as far as I'm concerned.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Something tells me there's quite a few things inactive in the Barr body.
Login to rate and reply to comments
One cool effect of x-inactivation is that it doesn't happen until after a few cell divisions, so that one x can be active in one patch of cells and another can express a different x. Calico cats are a result of this (they get weird patches of colors.)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by JenH, DarkerNorm, tellumo)
"Cliques may make you 50% more popular, but daybreak steals 20% of that," says ol' handyman. "Reconsider that, walrus."
Commentary:
In this passage, Gladiator Rex reflects on a pivotal moment in his youth.
As he paced through the streets, contemplating the devil's offer to make him beautiful and popular for the night of the ball, Glad ran into the village handyman, who gave him the best advice any lad had ever received.
Glad turned down the devil's offer, went to the ball dressed in his normal rags, and was teased by the popular children. He sneaked outside, removed the rags, doused them in kerosene, and used them to set the building ablaze. As the partygoers' screams filled the night, and Glad ran away as fast as his legs could carry him, he heard the handyman's voice whispering in his head: "That'll do, walrus. That'll do."
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't have any problem with it, personally. As long as someone's intended speech is clear, that is, what they're getting at, I see no problem with grammar inaccuracies or any other conventional language error.
I feel that language is not some stasis rock, it's something that evolves and changes over time, along with the people who speak it. While it is funny when people make awful mistakes, I think we all have to acknowledge that improper grammar does not necessarily make someone an idiot, and getting angry about words being used in a different manner than was intended in the 1700s is like yelling at the tide to stop coming towards you.
Either we speak the languages of today, or we remain mute.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Fahgeddabotit!
Login to rate and reply to comments
OH WHAT DA FUCK IS DIS SHIT I MADE A SPELLIN ERA?!
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by kylank, dwodles, Sn0wman, InspectorGadget, mortshire, equinn2006, Conn, blueshoc12, missania, Fcannon, Boyd, raynach, LeChatBotte, echidnaboy, kb)
so.. how many of you are there on this thing anyway? How do you keep track of who's saying what to who?
*taps microphone* is this thing on?
Login to rate and reply to comments
Welcome to the New Jerusalem, friend.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Written English requires more adherence to standard formal grammar. I am not a huge stickler about ending sentences with prepositions and shit, but for me to take a newspaper article or an academic paper seriously, it has to be written in fairly standard English.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I'm not commenting on this now. I'm waaaaay too lazy to read all that you're talking about. This part is my fault.
I'm gonna go play Pandemic instead. Hopefully this time Madagascar won't be the last surviving place for humanity.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by desert_donkey, Boredom_Man, skiddysmith)
It does not want to rape you to death, but it will if it has to.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
What's wrong, Dad?
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't like saying "his or her" as in
Everyone should clean his or her toilet.
(It would be improper to say "their")
I am not opposed to the words "his" or "her".
That would be silly.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
The word "it" has exactly the properties you describe.
Yes, yes, we find the use of "it" on people to be dehumanizing, but only because we're used to thinking of people as gendered and objects as ungendered. In French or German, the pronouns don't have such connotative power because even tables and chairs are given genders!
Login to rate and reply to comments
Transgender types often make exclusive use of "on" to refer to themselves and other Transgenders.
Despite this relatively useful neutral gender pronoun, one of the worst things you can call another man in France is "P.D." (said just like "payday"), which is a euphemistic abbreviation of a technical term for a homosexual.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
"When asked how these young students were able to inject more gender equity into the English language, Troyer said, 'Maybe they just invented a new pronoun because they didn%u2019t know that they couldn%u2019t.'"
God damn, that is some Chauncey Gardiner shit.
Login to rate and reply to comments
plus also, stating that "they didn't know that they couldn't" puts another bee in my bonnet. since when was one unable to invent a new word? waiting for the wankers at Webster's to agree to toss something in with McJob (seriously?) and that new verb 'google'...doesn't seem to be worth the time.
then again, languages are always changing. i read it in a book once upon a time.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
* research only consisted of every episode of The Wire and some of David Simon's books
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
That's not how it works, peasant.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
"To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay."
Mark Twain on the German Language
Login to rate and reply to comments
Plus, I was kidding when I suggested we use German. I'm just learning it, so I have it on the mind.
Login to rate and reply to comments
"For instance, the same sound, sie, means you, and it means she, and it means her, and it means it, and it means they, and it means them. Think of the ragged poverty of a language which has to make one word do the work of six -- and a poor little weak thing of only three letters at that. But mainly, think of the exasperation of never knowing which of these meanings the speaker is trying to convey. This explains why, whenever a person says sie to me, I generally try to kill him, if a stranger."
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Prime example: in some African languages, there can be up to 12 different gender modifiers. Now, in our linguistic class, we tried - we really did - but even after you bring in all the various diaspora of gender and sex classification, you struggle to get up to 12. And I doubt that there'd be a large enough amount of transvestites or post-op trannies in small African tribes to necessitate a gender modifier in non-related nouns for the common language, anyway.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't know if it's all that easy to change the way people speak English, I'd be fine with either making "it" less specific than people generally consider it, or using another word (xe, on, yo, ze, they, etc.).
I also appreciate French's tu, a purely singular "you" but from what I gather it's more informal than "vous" which is closer in usage to the English "you".
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Still, regardless of one's persuasion, I wouldn't really want to live in the Middle East. Except Turkey - that place just seems like a party.
Login to rate and reply to comments
It's still dangerous, illegal or potentially fatal to be gay, or even a cross-dresser, but apparently their interpretation of the Koran does allow for gender reassignment surgery.
It's at odds with the image we're constantly fed of those evil, mullah-crazed Iranians, but that's hardly surprising.
Login to rate and reply to comments
We used to have "thee" and "thou", but they morphed into the multipurpose "you".
Some parts of the English-speaking world have come up with substitutes such as "youse" and "y'all".
Some regard these as mutilations of English, but they seem like examples of useful colloquialism - filling a gap in the language, rather than simply mangling a word out of laziness or ignorance.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Seems like second person plurals have a tendency to degenerate into singular usage, for some reason.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I meant (letting wiki do the talking) "Early Modern English distinguished between the plural you and the singular thou."
The conflation of ye=you/ye=the due to the letter 'thorn' also messes with my mind.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
French Tu-Toi form is singular second person, but is further modified by never being used for a person of higher rank (except God or a close family member like Daddy) or an unknown person. Vous-votre form is plural second person, so it is always used if more than one "you" is being addressed, but is also used where tu-toi is too familiar. In many parts of France, you will only use the Tu-toi form if A) you are speaking to a clearly social inferior such as a child, B) you have been tu-toi'ed by the other speaker, and even then it might be wise only after C) you've gotten permission.
Historically, thou-thee form in English is equivalent to tu-toi, and vous is the actual origin of English "You". Of course, today one only finds thou-thee in use among closed religious societies (like the Amish) or in religious context amoung those who just like the King James version better. So, for all intents and purposes, You is the only You Enlgish has for plural vs. singular, formal vs. familiar use.
German uses the third person plural "Se" for a formal you.
Spanish uses "usted" (conjugated third person singular) for formal second person singular and "ustedes" (conjugated third person plural) for formal second person plural.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
One may never f o r g e t . . .
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Language change is natural. If you want to ascribe some of it to people being lazy or ignorant about standard usage, fine, but it's still going to happen. And although there are some conventions - like the correct use of apostrophes - that everyone agrees ought to be followed, many linguistic prescriptions are bunk. By bunk I mean that they're not actually followed in writing or casual speech consistently, even by everyone who propounds them.
There comes a time in any linguistic change process where some people will claim a certain usage is right, some claim it to be wrong, and many are in the middle. In the case of apostrophes, the standard rules apply, so use them right! But what's the last time you cooked dinner wearing a napron and them set the apkins on the table? Those words were once correct, and the change was due to "laziness" - people putting the "n" in the wrong place when saying "an apron" and "a napkin" - but the line has long since been crossed beyond which our current forms are standard. Is it rape, a crime against the language, to say the words we now use? No, and the world has not exploded! No one gives half a damn!
The point is: Who the hell is anyone to judge linguistic "errors" and those who commit them as irremeably Satanic? At best, you're a copy editor legitimately correcting dumb mistakes before public viewing of material. At worst, you've actually got little sense of the history of English or the reasons behind many of our so-called rules. Well, worse than that, you're just saying "Ha ha, you're a cretin and an idiot and I'm smarter than you," which is pretty nasty behavior.
I used to care about bad apostrophes! Still do! But I learned to save my actual feelings for things that matter in life.
Login to rate and reply to comments
However, I still regard Merriam Webster as a cheap little (gender neutral) whore of a dictionary for including words like 'irregardless' with the caveat that 'some' regard it as an error. The upshot of this is that the Firefox's spell-check recognises 'irregardless' and refuses to underline it in red.
It's a slippery slope.
More seriously, misuse of words - such as using 'enormity' as a form of 'enormous' - does degrade the language by adding ambiguity and diluting the meaning of a handy word.
This strip gets a five for Cornelius alone.
Incidentally, Tina's use of "must of" sparked a similar debate last week. What with her behaviour during Ray's emergency and Beef's assessment of her afterwards, I think Onstad must of used the phrase to mark Tina as being of Low Mind.
Login to rate and reply to comments
In general, let's keep the true meaning of words around for as long as we can - as long as there's a chance other people will know what we're saying - because that's cool! But when a grammar rule is ancient history ("never end a sentence with a preposition" is someone's stupid idea of applying Latin rules to English, and has never been followed consistently by anyone in the history of our language), or impossibly obscure, drop it. I don't expect anyone to think that "cathode" ought to mean "the way down," even though that's the literal meaning in Greek; neither should someone bug the flip out if I say "mis-chee-vi-ous" instead of "mis-che-vous." To all the talk among the "educated" about shooting and murdering those who speak differently than they do - grammar rage - I say, chill a bit. Live and let live. I'll go on saying the room was noisome and mean it was stinky, you'll go on thinking I meant it was loud, I'll sit here being right and you'll be wrong, and the world will go on.
Login to rate and reply to comments
But seriously, I think people take the narrow, short-term history approach at language, and you're logically taking the long-term. But it makes sense on both sides: people want to be correct in their time, obviously. If ending a sentence with "at" is wrong now, they want to follow the rules. When in 500 years that might be negligible when English becomes something else, things will be different. So, I don't know, that's language...? I follow the current rules is all I can say.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Seriously, that rule has no purpose, and was made to make English more Latinate.
I think.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
The people who do misuse it in writing or speaking are mainly journalists, or some other class of folks who are paid for their ability to write and/or speak words and thus should know better. They can be blamed for using 'enormity' wrongly, as well as for other people (those in your example) doing so as well.
Of course, there's a big difference between speaking and writing when it comes to the development of language. Colloquial English can change with amazing rapidity, but the fact that the spoken language is anchored to a fairly strict (if irregular) set of rules for the written means that it doesn't mutate so rapidly that it becomes unintelligible a few generations or centuries down the line.
We can still read Shakespeare and even Chaucer with relative ease because of this. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that Shakespeare's plays would have been much harder to understand when performed in Elizabethan English.
Now that i think of it, I don't think I ever grumble or act the prick about spoken English of any stripe. It's only mistakes in writing (and almost always in writing that's intended for public display) that actually get my angry-glands juiced.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
RIP DFW while we're at it.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Of course having standards for Standard English is good, and of course some linguistic change obscures distinctions which once were there (in linguistic terminology, making distinctions "opaque"), but that has happened a billion times in the evolution of all the world's languages. What happens is, new ways of making distinctions evolve. Languages, contrary to many people's perceptions, don't go from being very complex and expressive to being lackluster and worthless for communication. It's all in what you make of the language you have available.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Whosoever finds it will receive ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Two thoughts arose immediately: "So what is it with taxes these days?" and "What if it isn't about right vs. wrong, but just about what works?" No matter how legal or accepted rape becomes, it just won't work.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
-Hedonismbot, 75% swede
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
I don't have anything against lechatbotte, but sloppy philosophy just offends me on a deeply personal level. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
So: I completely get that all some folks are up to in thier lives is to dehumanize and degrade others, and that they actually (gasp!) want to do these things. It destroys workability in their lives, but how many people have you known who had lives that really worked?
Let me get really bold and possibly offensive here: Not only is that what some people are up to, I DON'T KNOW A SOUL LIVING who hasn't spent at least a major part of their lives dehumanizing and degrading others!
Your assumption is that my failure to give in completely to cynacism and resignation comes from some sort of "motivational-speaker" (hear "elevator music" of human speech) understanding of human nature. Quite the contrary! I really get that basic, dirty, unmentionable aspect of human nature that we would rather club someone to death than be proven wrong! Man, I get it! I just don't make it mean anything.
It is only in the face of this reality of what it is to be human that a selfish asshole like me can choose to be generous and kind! (And, I still don't make it mean anything.)
You find my philosophy sloppy only because you don't get it fully enough to get it. Nothing wrong with that! Just try on that there's more here than meets the eye.
The people in life who get to have full understanding of things are the ones who are sitting there doing nothing but watching.
When you watch a game of tag, you can see everything, and criticize those who get tagged. But when you are actually in the game, playing all out, you don't have time for understanding! You have to "get" as best you can where each of the players are, and do your best not to be or stay "it". The result is not only that you have more fun than the spectator, you also really have gotten something about that game that no spectator will ever have. You "get" it, and it's better than any understanding it could be!
You can be as logical as you like (I wasted a huge amount of my life in such persuits), but no spectator has the impact on the outcome of a game of tag that a below-average participant has. He's in the game!
Try it on, see what fits.
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by efurman, Straycatrut, killkillkill)
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by efurman, Straycatrut, killkillkill)
Sometimes the only way to break with what you may otherwise automatically hear is to alter the structure just lightly enough to have be heard. Quotes do that. I pretty sure that it had nothing to do with being or seeming sagacious, as I am only that in a joke!
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
But what works always does, always has, always will - and never comes from a context of valid vs. invalid, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral.
All of those are part of the context most people live in: "There is something wrong here, and it needs to be fixed."
What if there isn't anything wrong? What if it's just the way it should be? And shouldn't be? What if instead of trying to fix and change, we just did things - things that work - because we choose them, not to get somewhere, but just because we choose them.
Don't answer right away. Let that one sit with you for a day or two. Then get back to me.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
When you find someone whose life is really working (not a function of fame, wealth or importance), you will see in play what I'm talking about.
But good luck with that! You won't find very many people with lives that really work. You will find a lot that pretend like they do, or who know they don't but hide it. We are absolutely addicted to looking good and being right!
Login to rate and reply to comments
For example, if the goal is to obtain some other peoples' property, a campaign of ethnic cleansing can 'work' quite effectively. If the goal is to satisfy one's sexual urges in the absence of a consensual partner, then for some people (rapists) rape 'works'.
Login to rate and reply to comments
So, who you have to be to obtain other peoples' property thru ethnic cleansing is why it doesn't work. Who you have to be to satisfy your procreational urges thru rape is why it doesn't work. (Authentically, rape is typically more about power and control than a need for sex.)
Most people seek power to be and control. They feel like it gives them a standing when in fact they are standing on an illusion. Coercive power may get some results, but in the long run it doesn't work.
Authentic power blossoms in language, but is brought about by who you are being in speaking. It only works when what you say happens without compulsion or coercion. You say it, and it happens. Ghandi says "No more war", and then the war ends. It wasn't what he said, but who he was being. (Don't worry if it doens't all make sense. Just sit with it, and let it be awhile, and see what you get.)
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
Does something by definition not "work" if it's unlikely that a protagonist in the Harry Potter books would do it? Or are you just labouring under the naive presumption that while all the successful rapists and dictators in the world may seem to be happy, they are all in fact suffering from deep, surpressed emotional turmoil that renders all of their evil actions less than worthwhile?
Login to rate and reply to comments
The end! No moral.
Login to rate and reply to comments
Login to rate and reply to comments
"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, 'In this world, . . . you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.' Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."
If you really got who you are, who we are, and what it's all about, these questions would not concern you (as they don't concern me). Consider that the results you get in life is not equal to your experience of life. How often have we heard of depressed and suicidal people who appear to have it all, the absolute dream life, and yet whose experience of life is dismal? And then there are folks who don't appear to have anything like an ideal life, whose days are filled with mind numbing, back breaking work, but who are always content and happy. What do they know? Who are they that nothing brings them down?
In that vein, it really doesn't matter to me, or make a difference for me if you consider me a raving lunatic or a "clever biscuit". It's not about me! If I can impart any part of the contentment and workability of my life to others, that matters!
I am all about contributing to others' workability and ways of being, while accepting them just the ways they are, and just the ways they aren't.
So, sit with the ways of being in play here, and stop getting stuck on the doing. We always think that it's the doing that gets us the results we seek. I submit that doing only gets us the results we get. Other ways of being create new ways of doing, and hold the key to getting the results we want.
Login to rate and reply to comments
(marked lame by gladi8orrex, efurman, Straycatrut, killkillkill)
Ya' know, I_Love_Kate, there's an interesting thing that humans do - I don't mean just some humans, but pretty much all of us: Whenever we are handed any piece of information or asertion, we take that brick to the "wall of knowledge" we've been building since birth, and find a likely spot to shove it and force it to fit. It doesn't matter if that brick belongs anywhere near our wall, we will not rest 'til we make it fit! That's what's happened here. I invite you to take the brick I gave you out of the wall (it doesn't belong where you put it), and just let it sit in your lap awhile. It's the beginning of a new wall for you! Some things take time. Just keep asking the questions. If I ever actually achieve "enlightenment", it will be from asking the right questions at the right times.
I'm no guru. I'm just another human being. I can lay claim to some awareness - and I'm glad to have it! I can share with you its possibilities, and point the way to i