Slashdot Mirror

Seriously, which part of that thing reminds you of a car? Feel free to list which parts.

If you want your message to be clear, don't pepper it with "alleged" qualifications for rape accusations. This here is an internet forum, not law school, and double quotes are an established way of communicating disapproval.

The purpose of highlighting the words "alleged" is just that, to illustrate that there have been no convictions and the allegations have come from another source see here for an acceptable usage and that it is all speculative by others who have ZERO evidence of any crime beyond speculative media comments and accusations. The only people who know what happened are the Clinton's and their accusers.

As to what you allege to be your point: can you explain why you insist that women specifically should not support a candidate that they believe guilty of sexual misconduct? What about men? See, that's the most insidious form of sexism there is; it reeks of double standards so deeply engrained that even in the context of a gender-sensitive topic you fail to recognize your own bias.

Again you make an assumption and I insisted on nothing, I specifically stated women as a particular example of a recent statistic and series of interviews that I heard and I had to question why and point out I found it shocking. If I had heard interviews with males, I would have included them in my comment, but since I had not at that point, it was not valid to include them. As you said, this is an internet forum and is not a formal debate forum, so you assume because I only stated interviews with women, that somehow I believe that means males are exempt, which is far from the case and is not indicated in my original statements, so again you inject your own opinion in to my statements. For the record, I think Donald's open admittance to how he treats women and how he sexualizes his daughter to be disgusting and I am male; had you asked me whether I think it is more shocking for women to support Trump and believe he is guilty than males, I would have given you my opinion, but you resorted to:

Don't bring the "female supporter" angle into this unless you're ready to fully explore the role of Clinton in silencing and threatening the women who made rape accusations against her husband.

Which again was contrary to the topic at hand and a distraction from my original point; you had an axe to grind, so you decided to grind it with the statement above.

The real question should be: is it acceptable for people (of all genders) to support a candidate that they believe guilty of sexual misconduct? And my answer ro that is a resounding YES because that's what democracy and freedom is all about. Support whoever the fuck you want for whatever reason you want. Just like people who are badly misinformed are still entitled to vote, and just like pedophiles deserve to be defended by the ACLU when their freedom of speech is attacked, there's no reason to look down on people who support a flawed candidate.

I have never stated a person does not have a right to support a candidate for whatever reason and yet again you inject your assumptions in to my statement.

Yes, I think Hilary Clinton is a heartless sociopath that should not be allowed to control the US nuclear stockpile, and I am disgusted by the hypocrisy of people who turn a blind eye on her obvious lack of morals because she happens to be the candidate that represents their political affiliation. But I don't think the gender of those individuals (like you) who are paving the way for that corrupt witch to become leader of the free world matters.

Irrelevant to my original post about Donald Trump and the women I heard interviewed that still supported him.

Oh and BTW:

And you know what, with your insistance on "alleged" you remind of those fuckers who let college athletes get away with rape be

" I went to get educated."

So, then you failed.

"Went to get an education" "Went for an education" "Went to be educated".

Pick one.

"Get" is a verb. "Educated" is also verb. Proper simple sentence structure is Subject-Verb-Object , not Subject-Verb-Verb

So you are essentially saying you "went to get gotten", which you evidently were.

Pedantic, I know, but anyone throwing around smack about how smart they are should know better.

Educated is also an adjective, as in "an educated person". "I became [adjective]" is a valid sentence with valid structure and "get" in the sense of the GP is a colloqial form of "become". You can "get taller", "get fatter", "get healtier". And, as I have just shown, even pedants can "get educated".

Just look at the second example here.

Or the when the would be appropriate :)
http://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/the.htm

IIRC: it has to do with William the Conqueror (from Normandy) who invaded and took over England in mid 1000s. They brought French as their language, and set it up as the language of the royal court and of business. English was the language of illiterate peasants, back in those days if you knew how to write you would not speak English in dealing with people at or above your level in the society, neither would you write it. The problem with English was that it couldn't very well express the more complex abstract notions (it would be impossible to translate quite a few ancient works into it, for example): it just didn't work too well for much else besides a rather simple, uneducated life. This lasted for ~400 years. Those Normans were pretty much what shaped the development of written middle English. See this and that.

Ok, you win the word 'its', I mistakenly thought an apostrophe should be there to mark ownership.

As for 'Does the CIA' or 'Do the CIA' - both are correct, although as I think of the CIA as being a group of people and not a single entity, 'Does the CIA' sounds wrong to me as an English person.

So the correct term can also be:
'How do the CIA keep their IT staff honest?'

See:
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-m_plural-singular.htm

Huh?

A question asked directly does, though.

Well, to continue the pedantry ... in and of itself, "Huh?" is merely an interjection.

Interjection is a big name for a little word. Interjections are short exclamations like Oh!, Um or Ah! They have no real grammatical value but we use them quite often, usually more in speaking than in writing. When interjections are inserted into a sentence, they have no grammatical connection to the sentence. An interjection is sometimes followed by an exclamation mark (!) when written.

It's a grammatical equivalent to a grunt.

Ergo, no question was ever posed. :-P

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-subjunctive.htm

"I initially read "attack" as a verb, not as an adjective."

That's just as well, because in this instance, "attack" is a NOUN, you moron...

It's a noun being used as an adjective. Also, calling someone a moron isn't a good way to start off if you want to influence their opinion.

As for the rest of your post, one could make arguments for religion in general being a contributing factor to a large portion of the worlds problems, but singling out Muslims does nothing but make you appear bigoted.

(I know, I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls. I just really have nothing better to do right now.)

Old English (450-1100 AD)

History of the English Language
Aren't patents / trademarks supposed to be for new inventions? Something that hasn't been seen before.
This just shows how screwed up the patent / trademark system is.

What, arguments related to the question? The point of the grandparent post was that they felt hospitals and other cases with genuine public benefit are an acceptable reason to force the sale of land. If a hospital (which certainly involves private corporations making a profit, at least in America) fits this description, then it's certainly possible that a private company could be as well. There's no nationwide law that would apply perfectly to all the possible variables to these situations. Perhaps it is best for the local communities to determine the best course of action, which is what this ruling does: it defers the decision to the state/local government.

even if it was free as in speech.

Learn English.

I'll pretend the other errors were typos.

Don't use adverbs in a numbered list. Webster explains it:

First (not firstly), it's unclear what the adverb is modifying. Second (not secondly), it's unnecessary. Third (not thirdly), after you get beyond "secondly," it starts to sound silly.

Also, use:

However, even if it were easy, ...

This is known as a subjunctive.

What's the difference?

You're == You are.

I don't see how the poster is wrong.

Since this is being written, you mean:

What is the difference?

I do not see how the poster is wrong.

Contractions are not proper english. Tolerated for speaking, but not for writing.

you're
aren't
can't
shouldn't
wouldn't

None of these are proper english. Despite common usage, contractions are basically "slang".

It is the same reason that writing your boss a letter stating

"Yo G, ya gotta check out the phat new Bling hangin' on the corporate crib, yo, this shit is dope!"

When you mean.

"Mr President, please take the time to have a look at the new corporate logo that was recently installed on the top of corporate headquarters. I think you will find the contractors did a great job with placement and design."

It says the same thing (basically), but one is a little more proper than the other, at least outside of the US. Same with contractions.

http://vocabulary.englishclub.com/contractions-inf ormal.htm

PS I am not a grammar/spelling nazi, but you did ask what was wrong.

according to the article the only draw back to AbiWord is that it currently does not feature a grammar checker, though a plug-in is in the works.

-insert lame jokes with really poor grammar here-

But seriously folks... Is a grammar checker really that important a feature? I find that in Word, I turn it off because it drives me crazy. For one thing it is often out and out wrong. It will suggest corrections where none should exist, and falter on the more finessed rules of grammar such as singular references to indefinite pronouns or the subjunctive. Try typing "here be dragons" into Word and you'll see what I mean. If you're a pirate, Word is next to useless for noting up treasure maps, and that's just one of its many grammatical flaws for average users.

To me, these rules are the things that make English interesting and enjoyable. Products like the Word grammar checker just make people lazy and reduce the need to actually know the rules. Instead of making a computer do it we should take the time to learn the subtle details of our language. If you don't know the rules, not only will you struggle to express yourself but you will miss the details in other people's words. In this sense it's all a bit cyclic - the more our word processors fix our spelling and grammar for us, the more we devolve into a community of people with the linguistic skills of George Bush, totally dependent on pressing 'F7' to help us construct our sentences.

Or to forget the learned discussion and just quote the damn Simpsons like I was going to in the first place:

Lisa: Almost done. Just lay still.
Linguo: Lie still.
Lisa: I knew that. Just testing.
Linguo: Sentence fragment.
Lisa: 'Sentence fragment' is also a sentence fragment.
Linguo: Must conserve battery power... *switches himself off*

At a maximum rate of 20 cents a text message, Ray would have tallied a bill of more than $10,060 for his protest.

Hate to be the grammar Nazi here, but the story is not inaccurate -- "would have spent" is the third conditional, which refers to "a condition in the past that did not happen.". So it's not saying he spent the money, it's saying that if he had NOT been on the unlimited plan, he would have spent it.

Nobody knows how many people speak English:

Estimates go as low as 977 million people have notions of English. Or up to 1.5 billion.

The average googling for "how many people speak English" gets to One in Five in the world. So only 80% of the world has no notion of English at all...

By the way, Google Zeitgeist shows that about half of their visitors use Googles English interface. So i estimate that about half of the FC2 users will need the 4th CD.

This is a pet peeve of mine: the use (utilisation?) of the word utilise/utilize where the word 'use' would do. Though not technically incorrect, it is usually a byproduct either of a misguided desire to appear educated or of too much exposure to management-speak...or both.

Normally I'm not picky about this sort of thing on Slashdot, but in the context of this thread and this particular comment I think it appropriate to observe that grammar and spelling are (not is) utilised. Subject-verb agreement is a very important concept, and should be taught as a very early part of any grammar curriculum. If I were* a genuinely cruel copy editor, I would also note that the last sentence of the parent post is egregiously comma spliced.

I fear now that I've racked up sufficient bad karma from this little rant to ensure a spelling or grammar error will creep into this post....

*Kudos to you for studying German. I learned more about English grammer through my studies in French, Spanish, and German than I ever did in my English classes. The starred phrase above represents a correct use of the subjunctive--a concept I first saw clearly defined in Spanish 101.

>For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about americans and storytelling, you seem to have a lot of problems writing in a version of english that americans can understand.

Realise is an accepted alternative spelling for realize. That being said, Americans not knowing that helps explain their lack of interest in this show.

You mean, "If time_t were unsigned". Read up on the subjunctive mode.

Not to be a pedantic bastard, but you should have written "If I were a camwhore, I would be loved." You can read about the English subjunctive mood here.

s/through/though/

my wife's second language is english so i do a lot of this

you might like this site

as the subjunctive mood in my native tongue is relegated to the trash-heap of human expression.

The article blurb should be corrected thus:

"...explaining what he would do if he were a developer..."

If you do not understand the distinction, please examine this fine explanation from englishclub.com

you may find this helpful

"I am not as concerned with changing wind/rain patterns..." This suggests to me that you don't really care to change any patterns of wind or rain.

Well, that was not the intended meaning. "Changing wind/rain" is a gerund+object combination here, rather than using "changing" as a verb. So the meaning was: I am not as concerned with the change in ... rather than suggesting that I, personally, would change the weather.