Slashdot Mirror

Uhh...seriously? I mean...for real? OK, so none of these is a direct democracy, as per ancient Athens, but each of the three has a democratic form of government, albiet mitigated by the essential iniquities engendered by socio-economic divisions.

Uhh...seriously? I mean...for real? OK, so none of these is a direct democracy, as per ancient Athens, but each of the three has a democratic form of government, albiet mitigated by the essential iniquities engendered by socio-economic divisions.

I would consider dictionary.com and its various cited sources fairly authoritative.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virus

says who?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digicam

By definition Xenophobic doesn't have qualifiers about education or anything else. It's an undue fear of foreigners or things foreign, period.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobe

What you're describing is something else. Only letting in useful or highly educated people from other countries isn't xenophobic. It may be a dick move but it's _not_ xenophobic.

It's unfortunate about your Nigerian friend, but perhaps she should have spent the last years increasing her education so that she'd have more perceived value?

Let's further accept for the moment that a tenant of this religion

tenet

Wikipedia is wrong; the term "third world" has a different meaning now from the one that Sauvy originally intended:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/third+world

Firstly, If you have representatives, its not a democracy, its a republic.

If you have representatives you may have a representative democracy.

Representatives in a republic do face the difficult choice of doing what they think is right versus doing what the majority of their constituents want.

Representatives are not needed in a republic. So long as the head of government is not a monarchy or hereditary head of state it is a republic. NAZI Germany was a representative democracy, and therefore also a republic. On the other hand Monaco, surrounded by France and the Med, is a Principality ruled by a monarchy. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are monarchies as well. Morocco, where Bogart's Casablanca is, is a Constitutional monarchy. So is the United Kingdom.

simply voting based on your perception of the majority of your constituents desires is essentially reverting back to mob rule.

I agree, and so did the USA's Founding Fathers. That's why they only gave the federal government limited power, if the Constitution does not enumerate a power the federal government does not have that power. Of course some people twist things around when they say it's a living document. Of course it can be changed, by amending it which has been done 27 tymes. Therein lines a big difference between the USA and other constitutional democracies, government is limited in it's powers. The USA's Constitution itself can fit on two pages of paper, adding the amendments my printer software said it was 20 pages. The EU's proposed constitution, which voters in France vetoed as did those in the Netherlands, however was 852 pages. Now while the EU Constitution is dead the Treaty of Lisbon has been approved and signed.

Falcon

Firstly, If you have representatives, its not a democracy, its a republic.

If you have representatives you may have a representative democracy.

Representatives in a republic do face the difficult choice of doing what they think is right versus doing what the majority of their constituents want.

Representatives are not needed in a republic. So long as the head of government is not a monarchy or hereditary head of state it is a republic. NAZI Germany was a representative democracy, and therefore also a republic. On the other hand Monaco, surrounded by France and the Med, is a Principality ruled by a monarchy. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are monarchies as well. Morocco, where Bogart's Casablanca is, is a Constitutional monarchy. So is the United Kingdom.

simply voting based on your perception of the majority of your constituents desires is essentially reverting back to mob rule.

I agree, and so did the USA's Founding Fathers. That's why they only gave the federal government limited power, if the Constitution does not enumerate a power the federal government does not have that power. Of course some people twist things around when they say it's a living document. Of course it can be changed, by amending it which has been done 27 tymes. Therein lines a big difference between the USA and other constitutional democracies, government is limited in it's powers. The USA's Constitution itself can fit on two pages of paper, adding the amendments my printer software said it was 20 pages. The EU's proposed constitution, which voters in France vetoed as did those in the Netherlands, however was 852 pages. Now while the EU Constitution is dead the Treaty of Lisbon has been approved and signed.

Falcon

This father should be hung.

He might already be...

just in case...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tangential

Main Entry: enfranchise
Pronunciation: \in-fran-chz, en-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): enfranchised; enfranchising
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enfranchiss-, stem of enfranchir, from en- + franc free -- more at frank
Date: 15th century

1 : to set free (as from slavery)
2 : to endow with a franchise: as a : to admit to the privileges of a citizen and especially to the right of suffrage b : to admit (a municipality) to political privileges or rights

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enfranchise

The first definition, "to set free" is simple enough. The second definition is simply one who has received a Franchise (our subject is a group of people after all), so let us examine the definition of Franchise. In essence, it is a right to something. (The etymology of the word is interesting, its base having the meaning "free".)

So back to analyzing the summary:

If we assume the summary refers to those people who have no access to a toilet then the definition does match the usage of the word. In addition if you have no alternative other than using a toilet (or perceive no alternative) then the word would be correct in its usage. In either case the word would be correct in usabe bacause the person(s) are certainly not free, they are constrained in either choice or action.

If we assume the usage is to apply to those who don't *like* toilets and would prefer an alternative then the word is misused.

I would recommend reading a book of grammar and the rules of the English language before commenting on the meaning of words. I would also recommend that you stop assuming that you know exactly what group of unnamed people a speaker or author refers to.

I am sure you have heard of the saying about what happens when you assume things. =)

Here would be some examples of dictionary references to the word Franchise:

From Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/franchise

Main Entry: 1franchise
Pronunciation: \fran-chz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from franchir to free, from franc free --
more at frank Date: 14th century
1 : freedom or immunity from some burden or restriction vested in a person or group

2 a : a special privilege granted to an individual or group; especially : the right to be and exercise the powers of a corporation b : a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; especially : the right to vote c (1) : the right or license granted to an individual or group to market a company's goods or services in a particular territory; also : a business granted such a right or license (2) : the territory involved in such a right

3 a : the right of membership in a professional sports league b : a team and its operating organization having such membership

From Reference.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/franchise

franchise /fræntaz/

-noun
1. a privilege of a public nature conferr

Meet Mr. Precedent.

I dunno, I'm not sure I'd trust any sort of electronic hacking procedure from anyone who's a bit shaky on the grammar of the procedure terms themselves.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disconnect

(how the word "culture" can be associated with gangs is beyond me--strikes me as political correct speak run amok)

Using the word "culture" has more to do with anthropology than political correctness, and it is a valid usage in that context (though maybe "sub-culture" would be more accurate for what we are describing). Like many words in English "culture" has multiple and only somewhat related meanings. You seem to use only the first few definitions from the list I linked, which have a generally connotation. The term "gang culture" is a correct usage according to the fifth and sixth definitions, but these definitions are morally neutral and apply equally whether the overall aspects of a given culture are positive or negative.

As an additional note, I'd like to point out that your sig seems to contradict your stated position:

"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks

Or maybe you just don't understand the difference between the concepts of "Empathy" and "Sympathy". Feeling compassion towards someone because of their ignorance or stupidity is not the same as thing as intellectually identifying with them or vicariously experiencing their feelings, thoughts, or attitudes.

As an additional note, I'd like to point out that your sig seems to contradict your stated position:

"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks

Or maybe you just don't understand the difference between the concepts of "Empathy" and "Sympathy". Feeling compassion towards someone because of their ignorance or stupidity is not the same as thing as intellectually identifying with them or vicariously experiencing their feelings, thoughts, or attitudes.

Create, definition 1: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."

Invent, definition 1: "to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph."

Clear?

Next we'll be having to debate the definition of "is". :P The "Gore Bill" turned ARPANET into the internet. Feel free to hate the guy, but he deserves credit for this.

Create, definition 1: "to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."

Invent, definition 1: "to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance: to invent the telegraph."

Clear?

Next we'll be having to debate the definition of "is". :P The "Gore Bill" turned ARPANET into the internet. Feel free to hate the guy, but he deserves credit for this.

A liger's cells reproduce.

But a liger doesn't. That was the point. You can't break an item into its constituents bypass the statement on the whole item. If so, I can say that the atoms a liger's cells comprise of do not reproduce. This will also be as much missing of the point as your division of liger into its cells to determine whether it reproduces.

How would fire meet adaption?

adaption: the act of adapting.
adapt: to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly

A wood fire, when in contact with cotton, can start burning diesel. It has modified the chemical reaction, as per requirements. Requirement is of increasing its own size/intensity. Opportunity is the contact with diesel. Fire is opportunistic, and in that sense, adapts.

And how would it fit organisation

Fire organizes itself into different zones. Each zone has its
own characteristics, and even responsibilities if you will.

or response to stimuli?

Taken in its most elemental form, this phrase just means reactions to actions applied to an object. These particular words have acquired the connotations such that they only apply to "life as we know it" - the Nucleic Acid based life. Since fire is most decidedly not "life as we know it", of course it does not apply to fire. But this is not because fire is not life, it is because fire is not "life as we know it".

Anything reacts to actions applied to it. Apply 1 newton force on a ball(stimuli), it will apply the 1 newton force back on you(response). Sit in a big fire(stimuli), it will burn you(response).

A liger's cells reproduce.

But a liger doesn't. That was the point. You can't break an item into its constituents bypass the statement on the whole item. If so, I can say that the atoms a liger's cells comprise of do not reproduce. This will also be as much missing of the point as your division of liger into its cells to determine whether it reproduces.

How would fire meet adaption?

adaption: the act of adapting.
adapt: to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly

A wood fire, when in contact with cotton, can start burning diesel. It has modified the chemical reaction, as per requirements. Requirement is of increasing its own size/intensity. Opportunity is the contact with diesel. Fire is opportunistic, and in that sense, adapts.

And how would it fit organisation

Fire organizes itself into different zones. Each zone has its
own characteristics, and even responsibilities if you will.

or response to stimuli?

Taken in its most elemental form, this phrase just means reactions to actions applied to an object. These particular words have acquired the connotations such that they only apply to "life as we know it" - the Nucleic Acid based life. Since fire is most decidedly not "life as we know it", of course it does not apply to fire. But this is not because fire is not life, it is because fire is not "life as we know it".

Anything reacts to actions applied to it. Apply 1 newton force on a ball(stimuli), it will apply the 1 newton force back on you(response). Sit in a big fire(stimuli), it will burn you(response).

The argument that you're missing is that even though there is some arguable loss of freedom by paying taxes to help with the health of society, you are buying into a system...

You are not buying into anything. Stop pretending that there is a market when its tax dollars, which have been taken by force, being spent on "everyones" behalf. There is no market here. You are not buying.

He's using a freaking figure of speech! Also according to major American English dictionaries, if you are exchanging money for a good or service you are "buying" something regardless if there is a larger market involved. The GP was using the term in the in the same sense that the raging liberal SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. when he wrote "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure", in his dissenting opinion on Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1927)!

Follow the link and look at the history of the word.

Well, firstly, the history of the word is not the same as the current meaning of the word. "Faggot" once meant a bundle of sticks, but it mens something entirely different today. None of the current definitions in your own link refer to video as being analogous to audio.

Secondly, you assume your source is accurate about the history of the word. Personally, I don't buy it. Dictionary.reference.com is not exactly an esteemed source.

Finally, assuming the history mentioned there is correct, your original meaning of video as "visual equivalent to audio" could easily be referring to the same dictionary's definition of audio as something that's primarily about electronics and recording, not sound in general.

Ultimately, you're wrong, because nobody (apart from you, it seems) uses "video" to refer to visual stimulus in general, it is always used to refer to something that is electronically mediated.

No it isn't see the following link. Look at history of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/video [reference.com]

What. The. Fuck?

Your own link doesn't say that "video" is the visual equivalent of "audio." In fact, all of the definitions in your link locate "video" as an electronic or televisual medium, not as a general term for the visual.

That may not be the way you use the word, but guess what you don't all by yourself get to decide what words mean.

This is especially hilarious, as nobody else uses this word the way you do. You have invented some kind of imaginary usage of the word. You've made an epic blunder, which you might want to step away from. The equivalent of "audio" for images is not "video," but "visual."

No it isn't see the following link. Look at history of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/video That may not be the way you use the word, but guess what you don't all by yourself get to decide what words mean.

In a watered down way it was Harpers peroge where he stopped allowing the government to function.

I think you meant prorogue. Perogies are delicious though!

For what it's worth, my great-grandfather was born in Prussia (no idea where, he died way before I was born and he never spoke of it apparently) and left as a boy, about 12 years old I think and came to Canada. My grandpa, who was in school during WW2, told me that it was not very fun sometimes to have a German surname. Some people wouldn't talk to you and were very suspicious of your family. Even though you had nothing at all to do with Nazis or Hitler, and outwardly expressed your support of the British Empire and Canada, you were associated with them.

Here in the States the word 'oriental' is seen as a slur and isn't used anymore.

I've just been to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. It just means east. We refer to us as being "the West". Do you get offended by that?
Asians for me always meant Chinese/Korean/Japanese. Now it's anyone east of the middle East.

Now, this is not to nit-pick - but I can see that your use of "suck[s]" is incorrect.

In your example, you opted to use the verb "sucks" with an object, yet you failed to produce the object.

"Adobe sucks really big." is missing an object, perhaps you mean: "Adobe sucks a really big dick."

Your second example tries to use the verb "suck" without an object, yet you failed at that too.

"Adobe does suck really big." might be: "Adobe does suck really hard." Or perhaps: "Adobe does suck my really big dick really hard."

Even in slang, you may simply end the phrase with "sucks" as in: "Adobe sucks."

Welcome to English.

Seriously, why would anyone name their child Quim?

who for some unfathomable reason decided to call themselves "Acretive Solutions," or something. I mean, aside from the impossibility of being able to tell if it's "Acretive" or "Acrative" just by listening to it, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Not to imply that it's a good name, but it sounds as though you're not aware that "accretive" is a genuine word with an established meaning (it's an adjectival form of "accretion".)

I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word??

Seems like it http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word.

Word -noun

a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. Words are composed of one or more morphemes and are either the smallest units susceptible of independent use or consist of two or three such units combined under certain linking conditions, as with the loss of primary accent that distinguishes blackbird from black bird. Words are usually separated by spaces in writing, and are distinguished phonologically, as by accent, in many languages.

I could be confused - but is "protestors" a word?

Random House seems to think that it is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/protestor. (as an alternate spelling; yeah, caught me offguard too.)

The general public, and most of the politicians believe that it is only a small section of society that is against censorship.

Are you talking about this censorship or about censorship in general? If in general, I think you'll find feelings opposing censorship to vary widely by local and be proportional to functioning democracy (In general).

Besides, you seem to be talking in circular logic here. The general public believes that only a small fraction of itself is against censorship? What kind of argument is that? Was there some weird meta-poll? (pollsters sometimes use weird circular questions like this...) It still says nothing about what the general public thinks about censorship, only what members of the general public believe that others think about censorship. (a very important distinction.)

It's only condescending if you never got past an eighth grade education. Go look up "accident" and see what it means.

OK, we both know that you're not going to. So, from the page I just linked:

3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.

Note the example they give for definition 5 and compare with the quoted phrase "an accident of genetics" and see if you can figure out why it isn't condescending.

This post, on the other hand, is condescending.

It means "we are very many". See #5 here.

And you are correct - the word legion is often associated with the Roman legion, or the French legionnaires. So the phrase also implies that Anonymous is a vast army of soldiers. Which is part of their motif. If one "soldier" winds up in the party van, there are uncounted hordes of other anons that will take his place and continue the work, whatever that may be.

that Anonymous isn't actually a "group" and really just a bunch of individuals who have decided to take similar actions?

A group is a bunch of individuals.

group
-noun
1. any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation: a group of protesters; a remarkable group of paintings.

The medias usage is correct, what Anonymous is not is an organisation.

the url to the dictionary displayed correctly in the preview, but changed in the final version. weird.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modern

"Doesn't hate."

Dammned with faint praise...

On the other hand, it could be litotes; emphasizing something by negating its opposite. From the title/summary, it's ambiguous, but from TFA it looks like he truly likes the phone.

"Doesn't hate."

Dammned with faint praise...

Remember the time ... when people didn't just use the word censor to garner attention?

Let's just refer to the dictionary.

censor
-noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

-verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.

Origin:
1525-35;

"censor." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 05 Feb. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor>.

Remember that time when people used words as they are presented in the dictionary, mindful of their actual meanings? Me neither. But the GP is certainly doing so.

No, my family name is awesome.

Actually many pregnant women receive multiple mercury-laden shots even to this day. That 25-50mcg of mercury, plus formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients do reach the baby in the mother's womb as well. Autism may not always show up right away but this is a factor to consider.

That is called a non sequitor . You say one thing then another without showing they are linked. The studies I've heard about found no link between mercury and autism. Mercury and other nervous system disorders, yes, but not autism. Do you have something to show otherwise?

Also consider this: nobody has absolute proof that vaccines DON'T cause autism

True. And there is no absolute proof that this rock keeps away tigers either. This is specious reasoning

Let's have Lisa Simpson explain it for you.

Many studies favor institutional or political bias, especially as the majority of studies are funded by institutions who financially benefit from vaccines.

Wow. Don't know what to say about that one. You've basically resorted to ad hominem rather than show how the studies were flawed. When the tobacco industry engaged in research to support their views, the studies were very quickly found to be either a) flawed, b) unreproducible or c) faked. Other than Jenny McCarthy, do you have some sources I can accept to prove your contention that the studies proving no link were flawed, unreproducible or clearly forged data?

The onus is on you to prove they are wrong because the autism-vaccine link has been investigated by hundreds of researchers over thousands of patients, and they've been remarkably consistent in their findings.

Also, the U.S. government has settled hundreds of lawsuits over the past few decades with parents whose child became autistic or died immediately following a shot.

That's true, but how does settling a lawsuit change the science?

Another question is what causes SIDS? Again, mothers are injected with mercury-laden shots while pregnant, up to 50 mcg per shot, even though pregnant women are warned to stay away from any type of mercury including trace amounts in tuna fish.

Again, another non sequitor. SIDS is relatively rare, so if all pregnant women are exposed to the same levels of mercury, why such a low incidence?

You seem to be suffering from tin-foil hat thinking, and frankly, it's unconvincing.

Science is necessary for medical treatments meaning saving and improving lives. Animals are not more important than humans and if X animals have to die so that countless human lives can be saved / horrible medical conditions can be treated so that their quality of life is better, then yes, it's a worthwhile trade off.

Your argument would have a point if we were talking about human testing against people's will (as was done during the Holocaust). However, since we're talking about animal testing, the ethics part doesn't fit in.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

ethics
–plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Your moral principals allow you to see yourself apart from and above other animals. While you are not unique in this view, it does not make you right.

Even if one was to concede that humans are indeed superior to other animals, the argument could be made stating that very superiority gives us a moral obligation to not abuse the other animals for humanity's gain.

This topic has ethical implications all over it. For what it's worth, I am not intending to convey a particular side in this discussion. My only intention is to give light to the fact that a discussion is possible.

I don't pretend I know the answers to the questions I asked. I myself took the habit of writing as exactly as possible even when I don't write in my native language, as is the case for this post. I am sorry I made these mistakes because I feel it is politeness to express oneself correctly in a language, but I wonder if these mistakes really impaired the comprehension of the points I am trying to make ?

Anyway, I am willing to learn :
- Is that true ? Isn't that one of these differences between UK and US ? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obsoletes
- Sorry about this one.
- Hmmm, but that sounds like something I already heard. The correct expression is maybe "skills have this idea attached that..." ? Sorry about that one.
- IMHO and lol were humorous in intent.

Per: for each; for every
Cent: variation of "centi"
Centi: a combining form meaning “hundredth” or “hundred”

For each one hundred, there are so many. How is this not correct?

I know, I know. You wish there was a +1 Pedant moderation.

Per: for each; for every
Cent: variation of "centi"
Centi: a combining form meaning “hundredth” or “hundred”

For each one hundred, there are so many. How is this not correct?

I know, I know. You wish there was a +1 Pedant moderation.

Per: for each; for every
Cent: variation of "centi"
Centi: a combining form meaning “hundredth” or “hundred”

For each one hundred, there are so many. How is this not correct?

I know, I know. You wish there was a +1 Pedant moderation.

Can we please stop using "try and" when we mean "try to"? Many say it's non-standard in written speech, but it's worse - it means something entirely different.

"Try and" is in fact the older expression, and is closer to the core meaning of "try". Here's the earliest usage --

They try and express their love to God by their thankfulness to him. -- J. Sergeant, 1686

"Try" taking an infinitive only goes back to a 1697 poem of Dryden's (though there's a cognate usage of "trial" that goes back to 1683).

Age isn't the main indicator of which is better, of course...

Yes - I have this silly tendency to think that if it "parses" better it must be better. To me, the preposition + infinitive means try(action) while the conjunction + simple form means try();action, where the action is the implied object (argument) of try(). But then again, natural languages don't always make sense. My native tongue is Spanish, which is a shining example with its double negation.

The point is that once upon a time "try" didn't mean "attempt"; that's a secondary meaning that it was gaining in the late 17th century. The original meaning, which it still has, is "test, prove, experiment", as in "Try before you buy", or "I shall try this infrared camera technology and, I hope, thereby determine the tastiest slices of beef".

Thanks for the info. Fun thing, I have been schooled and I my opinion (about what we should be using now) stays valid ;)

In that sense "try and" makes considerably more sense than "try to": the implication of "try and determine" is that two intents are behind the one action, i.e. "I will conduct an experiment" and also "I shall (I hope!) determine". It's not actually being used as a modal verb, in other words.

Correct, if you assume the "hopefully" clause in the middle is implicit.

The short answer is: you're fighting the losing side of a 300-year-old battle,

*sigh* And yet, I will not go gentle ;)

and isn't it fun what you can find when you actually take the time to look in a dictionary?

Hmm... good old m-w.com says nothing beyond "to make an attempt at — often used with an infinitive <try to fix the car>". Then I went to dictionary.com and found:

Usage note:
10. "Try" followed by and instead of to has been in standard use since the 17th century: The Justice Department has decided to try and regulate jury-selection practices. The construction occurs only with the base form "try", not with "tries" or "tried" or "trying". Although some believe that "try and" is less formal than "try to", both patterns occur in all types of speech and writing.

... which somehow contradicts your information. Funny things, these human languages.

The noun "orientation" is derived from the verb "orient", not the other way around.

Thanks god someone mentioned that! I absolutely hate when people use that "word". It's just... wrong. It's like when people say "funner". Who cares if you know what the person meant, they're still butchering English and if they're a native speaker, that's just ridiculous.
-Taylor

The noun "orientation" is derived from the verb "orient", not the other way around.

Thanks god someone mentioned that! I absolutely hate when people use that "word". It's just... wrong. It's like when people say "funner". Who cares if you know what the person meant, they're still butchering English and if they're a native speaker, that's just ridiculous.
-Taylor

The noun "orientation" is derived from the verb "orient", not the other way around.