dude, I didn't say they should be exterminated did I?
Just like Bush should be gotten rid of... Oh... but that's a good thing
see the point? or would you like another conclusion to jump to?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is why I'm opting not to discuss the other points. When people only hear their judgments and cannot hear me, I'm out.
How am I only hearing judgements? I wasn't attacking or judging you (or anyone else for that matter). We were discussing the nature of arguments. I was genuinely interested in hearing the answers to the questions I asked you. A side conversation had broken out about what an ad hominem was and there was absolutely no judgment attached. I feel like we were having a decent conversation and hope that you will still answer my questions.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.
When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”
If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking that simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.
Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.
Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.
Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.
Broad generalizations v.s. specifics is the issue here.
If something taste like something to someone it is valid, otherwise you are an elitist. Who's to say what is better for whom in this regard?
If Hitler said rid the world of Zionist Jews in particular I'd agree with him, so part of his opinion is valid. There's usually some measure of validity in every opinion.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't picked up on (and I understand you're not saying kill all Zionist Jews).
Are you saying that an opinion becomes valid if someone else agrees with part of it? Cause that's what it sounds like. Or, are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with Zionist Jews and they should be gotten rid of (not killed, just gotten rid). In which case this is belongs to an entirely different thread, one where I would happily disagree with you.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't picked up on (and I understand you're not saying kill all Zionist Jews).
Are you saying that an opinion becomes valid if someone else agrees with part of it? Cause that's what it sounds like. Or, are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with Zionist Jews and they should be gotten rid of (not killed, just gotten rid). In which case this is belongs to an entirely different thread, one where I would happily disagree with you.
I think there are valid angles to every opinion, and what might not seem valid at the time may come into light as being of value.
I'm kinda tired of the word Zionism so I'm gonna say Jewish extremism. I think it's more to the point. I think it serves to undermine the Jewish culture as a whole by directing hatred towards it. The term "racial elitism" would be more succinct.
One group claiming divine right over the other for whatever reasons.
That's what I'm against, and that is what needs to be eliminated.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm kinda tired of the word Zionism so I'm gonna say Jewish extremism. I think it's more to the point. I think it serves to undermine the Jewish culture as a whole by directing hatred towards it. The term "racial elitism" would be more succinct.
One group claiming divine right over the other for whatever reasons.
That's what I'm against, and that is what needs to be eliminated.
I'm not going to debate this (or parts of it) here, cause its not the right place. But I will say that almost all forms of extremism should be eliminated because as you put it, it generally turns into "racial elitism" for whatever group.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.
When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”
If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking that simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.
Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.
Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.
Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.
why do I get banned for talking about Black people????
Again, not sure I agree with that for all cases. I think the opinion that murder is ok, is always wrong. But that is an extreme example.
If you were about to be killed, and someone magically popped up and wanted to murder your attacker to save your life, you would value that persons opinion, and cheer on their actions.
It's wrong in general, but specifics always seem to hold up in one way or another I find. It seems there's always some grain of good to everything when you increasingly approach the specifics to any bad situation.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
If you were about to be killed, and someone magically popped up and wanted to murder your attacker to save your life, you would value that persons opinion, and cheer on their actions.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that murder (on the part of my would be savior).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
I wouldn't necessarily consider that murder (on the part of my would be savior).
Without getting overly philosophical, there always seems to be a yin to every yang.
green eggs to every ham...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Even though it sometimes drives me bat shit crazy, I try not to say anything about spelling or grammar EXCEPT when I get the classic "Your retarded". All bets are off, and that person will be the object of ridicule. I may even quote a little Alanis Morissette.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Even though it sometimes drives me bat shit crazy, I try not to say anything about spelling or grammar EXCEPT when I get the classic "Your retarded". All bets are off, and that person will be the object of ridicule. I may even quote a little Alanis Morissette.
"I don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
--Tom Robbins
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
"I don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
--Tom Robbins
I didn't realize that was the choice. I'd much rather have a good time! Email or text messages are perfect media for the grammatically challenged. But if you're in this particular forum trying to debate serious issues, and you can't formulate coherent sentences, you will be fighting an uphill battle to make your point.
Anywhere else on the board it is OK to talk about they're music that there playing over their and I could care less if your using you're grammer right. [phew, I think I got most of my pet peeves out of the way ]
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
"I don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
--Tom Robbins
Such a good quote! Love Robbins
I always use the wrong 'your'...what's worse is that I'll type out you're when I needed the other one. Reading over this thread again, I see I've done it about 5 or 6 times in this one thread alone....I don't feel like going back and editing. The eye sores will have to stand.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
wow, you need help dude.
dude, I didn't say they should be exterminated did I?
Just like Bush should be gotten rid of... Oh... but that's a good thing
see the point? or would you like another conclusion to jump to?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=285025
How am I only hearing judgements? I wasn't attacking or judging you (or anyone else for that matter). We were discussing the nature of arguments. I was genuinely interested in hearing the answers to the questions I asked you. A side conversation had broken out about what an ad hominem was and there was absolutely no judgment attached. I feel like we were having a decent conversation and hope that you will still answer my questions.
Stuff White People Like
#99 Grammar
May 12, 2008 by clander
White people love rules. It explains why so they get upset when people cut in line, why they tip so religiously and why they become lawyers. But without a doubt, the rule system that white people love the most is grammar. It is in their blood not only to use perfect grammar but also to spend significant portions of time pointing out the errors of others.
When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like “hunger,” “being poor,” or “getting shot.” If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be “people who use ‘their’ when they mean ‘there.’ Maybe comma splices, I’m not sure but it’s definitely one of the two.”
If you wish to gain the respect of a white person, it’s probably a good idea that you find an obscure and debated grammar rule such as the “Oxford Comma” and take a firm stance on what you believe is correct. This is seen as more productive and forward thinking that simply stating your anger at the improper use of “it’s.
Another important thing to know is that when white people read magazines and books they are always looking for grammar and spelling mistakes. In fact, one of the greatest joys a white person can experience is to catch a grammar mistake in a major publication. Finding one allows a white person to believe that they are better than the writer and the publication since they would have caught the mistake. The more respected the publication, the greater the thrill. If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.
Though they reserve the harshest judgment for professional, do not assume that white people will cast a blind eye to your grammar mistakes in email and official documents. They will judge you and make a general assessment about your intelligence after the first infraction. Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. “Hey Jill, I’m sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I’m a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?” This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.
Don’t worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't picked up on (and I understand you're not saying kill all Zionist Jews).
Are you saying that an opinion becomes valid if someone else agrees with part of it? Cause that's what it sounds like. Or, are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with Zionist Jews and they should be gotten rid of (not killed, just gotten rid). In which case this is belongs to an entirely different thread, one where I would happily disagree with you.
I think there are valid angles to every opinion, and what might not seem valid at the time may come into light as being of value.
I'm kinda tired of the word Zionism so I'm gonna say Jewish extremism. I think it's more to the point. I think it serves to undermine the Jewish culture as a whole by directing hatred towards it. The term "racial elitism" would be more succinct.
One group claiming divine right over the other for whatever reasons.
That's what I'm against, and that is what needs to be eliminated.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Again, not sure I agree with that for all cases. I think the opinion that murder is ok, is always wrong. But that is an extreme example.
I'm not going to debate this (or parts of it) here, cause its not the right place. But I will say that almost all forms of extremism should be eliminated because as you put it, it generally turns into "racial elitism" for whatever group.
yes,
Teddy Kennedy really is a blithering buffoon.
being that he's my Senator, it's a hard thing to admit... sigh...
why do I get banned for talking about Black people????
If you were about to be killed, and someone magically popped up and wanted to murder your attacker to save your life, you would value that persons opinion, and cheer on their actions.
It's wrong in general, but specifics always seem to hold up in one way or another I find. It seems there's always some grain of good to everything when you increasingly approach the specifics to any bad situation.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I wouldn't necessarily consider that murder (on the part of my would be savior).
Without getting overly philosophical, there always seems to be a yin to every yang.
green eggs to every ham...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, there's always ham when there's green eggs.
Even though it sometimes drives me bat shit crazy, I try not to say anything about spelling or grammar EXCEPT when I get the classic "Your retarded". All bets are off, and that person will be the object of ridicule. I may even quote a little Alanis Morissette.
"I don't trust anybody who'd rather be grammatically correct than have a good time"
--Tom Robbins
I didn't realize that was the choice. I'd much rather have a good time! Email or text messages are perfect media for the grammatically challenged. But if you're in this particular forum trying to debate serious issues, and you can't formulate coherent sentences, you will be fighting an uphill battle to make your point.
Anywhere else on the board it is OK to talk about they're music that there playing over their and I could care less if your using you're grammer right. [phew, I think I got most of my pet peeves out of the way
Such a good quote! Love Robbins
I always use the wrong 'your'...what's worse is that I'll type out you're when I needed the other one.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thanks for the insight...:rolleyes:
here's my definition of scolding: "To reprove or criticize openly"...
which is what I took from post #46...
now, let's get back to flag pins, posters, and names...shall we...
Peace, my friend.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No worries at all, my dear...none at all...:)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/behind-the-obam.html
Unfortunately, according to the article, his video seems to be changing minds among voters too lazy to research the facts.
The problem is, you've just described the vast majority of the American electorate.