WHY....why do people find it so fucking difficult to distinguish between "it's" and "its"? I mean, in comments, mistakes are one thing. However, shouldn't you at least preview story submissions? I mean, it's a story about the IT profession. We're supposed to be professionals. How can you not know the difference between "it is" and "it possesses"? It's not that difficult. If you ever write the word "it's", simply read it as "it is". Applying that to the above example nets you, "While it is suspicious in it is timing..." Obviously, that does not make sense. Therefore, eliminate the superfluous apostrophe. Sigh.
Don't we realize if we were able to get a million man march formed...
If they couldn't do it for civil rights, what makes you think you could for convenience? I mean, sure it would be nice if they gave money back for bad movies....but how would you ensure that only people who truly did not enjoy the movie asked for a refund? I mean, there are so many people out there who would abuse that system that even libertarians like me don't think it's a good idea. Look, life entails risk. I used to work at a movie theater, and we *did* give refunds in certain cases. These were people who asked for one within 10 minutes of the movie starting. The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't paying for receiving enjoyment from a movie. You are paying to sit in the seats provided and listen on the sound system provided and watch on the screen provided. If you stay the whole time, you don't DESERVE a refund.
The only fly in your ointment is that companies are not being able to buy oil cheap. Apart from that, nice theory. Of course, many people seem to want to demonize businesses by claiming that they are buying low and selling high. However, this is exactly what it makes the most sense for businesses to do. Would you prefer that companies bought high and sold low, thereby driving themselves out of business? What, exactly, would you do were you in their position? Just curious, mind you. Also, please note that of course the 'original owner' of the oil isn't sad, as said owner must be deceased for quite some time before it becomes oil.
On a bright note we, in the state of Washington, voted in a proposition that allows us to vote for whom ever we want in the primary elections. The two highest vote getters will move on.
That is a good thing. Unfortunately for me (in that respect), I live in Texas. You know, that whole 'vote for whomever and the two most popular move on' concept sure sounds familiar...Ah well. Perhaps most people simply prefer a dichotomy because they don't want to understand more than 'them or me'. Maybe not. I don't know. I voted for Mr. Badnarik. I am of the opinion that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I know Mr. Badnarik isn't perfect, but he is a Constitutional scholar, at least. Of course, most people haven't heard him speak because of the republicrat-demopublican opposition to third-party candidates. Funny how the one thing they can agree on is that they want no other competition.
...a rich, white Bonesman won the election. What a surprise! Good thing there were two to choose from. Gotta have that freedom of choice, you know. With the wonderful two-party system we have, we get to pick either six of one, or half-a-dozen of the other. Thank God our votes mean something!
I am not responsible for failure to detect sarcasm in the above post. Consult your local smartass immediately if you have any questions.
I would never buy a cable that claimed to have 'sheilding'. However, I might purchase one with 'shielding'. YMMV. Also, there are round cables exactly as you described: individually wrapped (not raped) wires which are grounded at both ends. Is your problem with round cables, or improperly shielded cables?
Yes, yes. Very funny. It's obvious you care nothing about starvation. Good for you. Apparently, it doesn't matter how many people have to suffer as long as you can get in a dig at the President. Please note: I am not a Bush supporter, I am a Michael Badnarik supporter. A quick read through my posts will show that. However, it makes me sick to my stomach when people care more about blaming some guy they've never met (especially incorrectly) than the horrible deaths of people they've never met. Your priorities are out of whack. I realize you're trolling, but that doesn't excuse you. Starvation is a bigger issue than which rich white D.C. insider wins the POTUS. I would venture to guess that you've never spent even a week without food; you probably wouldn't be so glib if you'd ever experienced real hunger. Ah well, who knows what the future holds?
You are relying upon an incorrect assumption: that world hunger is due mostly to a shortage of food. yes, technically hunger *is* a 'shortage of food', but what I mean is that there is food enough to feed people, but it just isn't going to those people. In many cases, such as in Swaziland, local authorities refuse to distribute food that is sitting in warehouses locally. Thus the food rots, and the people die. Not because there was no food, and not even because there was no food near them, but because people in power refused to distribute food to them. No matter how much food is produced worldwide, if it is not getting into people's bellies, it's not helping.
I didn't insist on using different words. I insisted that both uses were correct. There's a world of difference. Besides, I've been calling sofas Chesterfields for years, and justifying it based on the fact that people from Canadia[sic] 'do it to'[sic].:)
You'rewrong. Not just about the correct spelling, but about 'only in America'. In fact, Canada uses that spelling as well. Of course, I am not correcting your spelling of aluminum, as I realize that in other parts of the world, that is the accepted spelling. Wow, funny how that works, isn't it? Realizing that other parts of the world might do things differently? What a fucking concept! Or do you insist that Americans spell curb 'kerb' and tire 'tyre' as well? To-MAY-to or To-MAH-to? Oh fuck, let's call the whole thing off.
You corrected an assertion that I did not make. Besides, companies in every field go out of business every single day. Am I more heartless for mentioning that fact than you are for bemoaning it? It's just the way it goes. My family owned a business at one point, and it went under because of my step-dad's drug use and gambling debts. It was a good company, too. That doesn't mean that I think drug use and gambling are going to go away just from me bitching about it. The harsh fact is, if your business can't survive it doesn't matter why. Would I prefer living in a utopia where no one ever acted in an immoral fashion? Of course. Do I believe that endless bitching about not living in such a society on slashdot is going to bring that state about? Hell no. All I'm saying is that there has been nothing added to this debate in the last 1500 conversations about it I've seen on slashdot, so why not end it? In fact, I'm going to follow my own advice. Feel free to respond if you like, but I am through with this topic.
I'll tell you the same thing I told the other troll: you won't see me say any such thing. Nor have you seen me say any such thing. Bzzt. Sorry. Try again.
Did I state anywhere that no company would ever be harmed by piracy? No. I did not state that. It's nice to know that an irrelevant argument, one which I did not even make, is invalid. Good job. I simply stated that video games are in no danger of extinction. This is because the profits being realized by successful game companies are so great that if the current players all suddenly vanished, there would be a new crop in place tomorrow. Are you saying I'm wrong about that? (Note to the pedantic: I realize it might take more than one day. I was using mild exaggeration to underscore my point.) Note that I also did not endorse software piracy at any point, nor did I advance the notion or implication that I am 'special' or better than anyone else, much less everyone else. For the record: I am not a unique snowflake, and I pay for my games. I don't encourage others not to. I simply stated that there will always be people who will pirate games. Again, would you care to contradict me on that point? If you don't care to address the points I actually made, rather than the fanciful imaginations of your fevered brain, please don't bother to respond.
It's real cool to download stuff for free, but the very people who do this will be the ones who cry the loudest when game companies stop producing games because of piracy and lost revenue.
I've been hearing that ever since the great Wing Commander 2 scandal back in the day. You're ignoring two very important facts: Piracy has existed as long as have products to pirate, and there are still so many people paying for games that there is absolutely no danger that they will stop being produced.
If game piracy is such a big problem, how did video games overtake Hollywood as the largest source of entertainment revenue in the US? This pointless debate is eternal. Some people do not pay for games. Some people do. There is sufficient demand for games to make them extremely profitable if they are written, distributed, and marketed properly. Saying that games should be free is just as insipid and unlikely as saying that everyone should pay for every copy of every game ever played. That isn't how the world works, and the key word is 'works'. For fuck's sake, could we all just shut up about it now, please?
Which has nothing to do with anyone who wants to hear the message. That's a red herring. If someone wants to say something, and I prevent them from doing so, I am censoring them. That's the basic definition. Location is immaterial, as is audience. That is why I qualified my statement to condemn censorship practiced by government. Also, your attempt to cloud the issue by mentioning 'BSA raids' is laughable. The BSA does not conduct raids. They sometimes send a person along with police who are conducting raids. There's a major difference, as the police are certainly government agents. Also, the ones I found mention of happened outside the US, so the laws of the US do not apply. Additionally, the BSA does not promote censorship. They oppose software piracy, and there's a gigantic difference there. Taking down websites which offer free downloads of copyrighted software is not the same as jailing the authors of politically incorrect missives. Care to throw out some more misinformation? If you would like some evidence of government censorship, check out the lawsuits filed by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent political ads which are unfavorable. That's an example of the government shutting down free speech.
Censorship is not inherently bad. For example, if I didn't let someone lecture on the evils of alcohol in my living room, I would be censoring that person. Do you think I have no right to do that? It is completely different when the government tells me what I can and cannot allow to be said in my own forum. If you can't appreciate the difference between censorship in general and governmental censorship, I feel sorry for you. Besides, what agency is going to 'come to take your words from you' other than the government?
Still, if the upheval is caused or accelerated by human activity, then wouldn't it be even more clever to slow or stop it?
Yes, if your interest is in the continuation of the human species.
But, if I may ask, why in the world do you think it is a bad thing to be interested in the persistence of one's own ass?
Bad? I didn't say it was bad to think this way. I said it was dishonest to represent yourself as a protector of the Earth when you are interested instead in your own continuation upon it. Let's face it: the most realistic solution for the environment, if humans truly negatively impact it, would be the removal of humans. You're never going to get 6 billion plus people to agree on anything, much less act in accord.
In summary: if you are concerned with saving your own ass, say that. Just don't tell me you're trying to save the planet when it does not need saving. Yes, there are honest environmentalists who want to save humanity and do not claim to be saving the planet. Most environmentalists that I've met, however, cloak their true concern behind a bunch of hogwash about 'saving the planet'.
True. All these people worried about 'the Earth' are in reality worried about their own asses. The Earth has, can, and will survive much worse than humanity could ever do without a coordinated intentional effort. All this talk about 'oh no! species are dying!!1!1', as if that has never happened before. New species arise and old ones die all the time. That's like, the natural order of things and stuff. If humans all died tomorrow, this planet would continue to exist quite happily. Now, whether or not humanity should survive is a valid question, but the survival of the planet isn't in doubt at all. That's why all the 'pro-environment' people all seem so disingenuous to me.
Hear, hear! If I meet one more libertarian who's not voting libertarian (again) because they want to vote for a candidate with 'a chance to win' I'm going to scream. Perhaps if you people voted for the candidate whose platform best represents your views instead of one you think will win, third-party candidates would have a chance. Sure, the money and power aren't there for them right now. Sure, it will take time to effect change. However, if we keep putting off the hard work and compromising our views just to be on the 'winning team', it will NEVER happen. Why the hell do you belong to a third party if you're just going to vote Republican or Democrat anyway? Kinda defeats the purpose of a third party. Since the 1850s, no third party candidate has received a single electoral college vote*. We could change that.
*That I could find. I know for sure that Ross Perot did not receive any, despite getting about 20% of the popular vote, the largest amount for a third-party candidate since the 1850s.
Repetition of an untruth does not make it suddenly true. If you're intrigued by my correction of spelling errors, I feel really sad for you. Of course, that isn't all I do, nor does it mean as much to me as you apparently think. Posting on slashdot is relaxing for me, especially when "people" like you keep responding. You overestimate the time and effort I put in to this, I do believe. Perhaps you underestimate the amusement I get out of it, also. Ah well, you've proven your idiocy long since. What's a bit more? As to trolling for me...good luck. There are many thousands of posts each day, many of which contain errors. If fortune smiles upon me, your trolling will be successful. If not, no biggie. There's no shortage of morons who will defend their mistakes for the full 15 days, as you apparently will. Keep replying, keep repeating. I'll be right here. Oh, and thanks. You're cheaper than a movie, and only slightly dumber than most of them.
Mr. Pot, you seem to be in the habit of calling kettles black. You are involving yourself with me, even though my concerns are 'trivial'. This despite the fact that I am totally uninterested in your concerns. I also find it amusing that you consider me a dumbass, when you're the one who confuses "it's" and "its" and "who's" and "whose". Interesting take, that. I don't know why you're surprised that I'm replying to you; that's what I do when people reply to me. I wouldn't have involved myself with you past that first post, except that you replied. All I did was correct a few mistakes that you made. There was no reason for me to continue talking to you until you replied. Why, if it is such a bad thing that I am replying to you, do you continue to reply to me? You call my concerns trivial, but how much more so must yours be, if my trivial concerns are of concern to you? I certainly have no problem continuing our conversation for 15 days or 15 years. After all, it would be rude not to reply to someone's communication, wouldn't it? It's not like typing is difficult, nor rebutting your "points", nor pointing out your hypocrisy. I may take a few hours to respond, since I have a job and a life, but rest assured that I will reply...until the 15-day cutoff. I'm quite sure you'll make a stupid mistake in another thread. Perhaps I'll correct it and we can start this all over again. Unfortunately, not even I can correct every mistake on slashdot. Que sera sera.
Who's keeping who going? If you weren't a total idiot, you'd know that neither of us can keep the other going for more than 15 days from the posting of the article. And obviously you don't understand what words mean, or what my standards are. I correct unintentional mistakes. I have no philosophical problem with occasionally intentionally making an error to prove a point, or if (as in your ee cummings reference) it's a stylistic statement. You're continuing to make yourself look bad, and you're going to continue doing so for the rest of your life, I'd wager. I don't know why you're proud of appearing stupid, but apparently it means a great deal to you. You're succeeding brilliantly, good job!
My hypocrisy? In what? Again you attempt to defend yourself by attacking me. However, as I told you, I used the wrong word on purpose. You, the champion of incorrectness, jumped my shit the second that you perceived you had a chance. Yet here you are calling me a hypocrite. Project much? Also, as I said, it isn't that poor English is necessarily indecipherable. It's that, taken to an extreme, it hampers communication. Sure, this isn't a formal forum. However, bad habits perpetuate themselves outside of informal communication. If you want to seem like an idiot in front of your boss (or teacher, in your case) that's fine with me. I will continue to correct your mistakes if I happen across them. There isn't anything you can do about it. Your position is silly and wrong. You are either too proud to admit this or too stupid to see it. Either way, the result is the same. It would be difficult for me to have any less respect for you, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make it happen. Have fun trying!
How can I accept a 'loss' when there's nothing to lose or win? I proved that you were just as apt to correct perceived wrongs as I am. However, you justify your mistakes with worthless rhetoric. Homonyms do not now and never have shared definitions. Sorry. Wood ewe really want peephole all ways righting inn homonyms? Is it decipherable? Of course. Does it promote good communication? Of course not. You are wrong on this subject, and will never be right. I doubt you'll accept it, but that makes no difference. Your non-belief in the value of coherent language does nothing to diminish its importance. Also, if you truly believed me to be ambiguous, I feel very sorry for you. More likely, you were posturing for effect. At least, I'm willing to grant you the dubious benefit of the doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is suspicious in it's timing...
WHY....why do people find it so fucking difficult to distinguish between "it's" and "its"? I mean, in comments, mistakes are one thing. However, shouldn't you at least preview story submissions? I mean, it's a story about the IT profession. We're supposed to be professionals. How can you not know the difference between "it is" and "it possesses"? It's not that difficult. If you ever write the word "it's", simply read it as "it is". Applying that to the above example nets you, "While it is suspicious in it is timing..."
Obviously, that does not make sense. Therefore, eliminate the superfluous apostrophe. Sigh.
Don't we realize if we were able to get a million man march formed...
If they couldn't do it for civil rights, what makes you think you could for convenience? I mean, sure it would be nice if they gave money back for bad movies....but how would you ensure that only people who truly did not enjoy the movie asked for a refund? I mean, there are so many people out there who would abuse that system that even libertarians like me don't think it's a good idea. Look, life entails risk. I used to work at a movie theater, and we *did* give refunds in certain cases. These were people who asked for one within 10 minutes of the movie starting. The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't paying for receiving enjoyment from a movie. You are paying to sit in the seats provided and listen on the sound system provided and watch on the screen provided. If you stay the whole time, you don't DESERVE a refund.
The only fly in your ointment is that companies are not being able to buy oil cheap. Apart from that, nice theory. Of course, many people seem to want to demonize businesses by claiming that they are buying low and selling high. However, this is exactly what it makes the most sense for businesses to do. Would you prefer that companies bought high and sold low, thereby driving themselves out of business? What, exactly, would you do were you in their position? Just curious, mind you. Also, please note that of course the 'original owner' of the oil isn't sad, as said owner must be deceased for quite some time before it becomes oil.
On a bright note we, in the state of Washington, voted in a proposition that allows us to vote for whom ever we want in the primary elections. The two highest vote getters will move on.
That is a good thing. Unfortunately for me (in that respect), I live in Texas. You know, that whole 'vote for whomever and the two most popular move on' concept sure sounds familiar...Ah well. Perhaps most people simply prefer a dichotomy because they don't want to understand more than 'them or me'. Maybe not. I don't know. I voted for Mr. Badnarik. I am of the opinion that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I know Mr. Badnarik isn't perfect, but he is a Constitutional scholar, at least. Of course, most people haven't heard him speak because of the republicrat-demopublican opposition to third-party candidates. Funny how the one thing they can agree on is that they want no other competition.
...a rich, white Bonesman won the election. What a surprise! Good thing there were two to choose from. Gotta have that freedom of choice, you know. With the wonderful two-party system we have, we get to pick either six of one, or half-a-dozen of the other. Thank God our votes mean something!
I am not responsible for failure to detect sarcasm in the above post. Consult your local smartass immediately if you have any questions.
I would never buy a cable that claimed to have 'sheilding'. However, I might purchase one with 'shielding'. YMMV. Also, there are round cables exactly as you described: individually wrapped (not raped) wires which are grounded at both ends. Is your problem with round cables, or improperly shielded cables?
Yes, yes. Very funny. It's obvious you care nothing about starvation. Good for you. Apparently, it doesn't matter how many people have to suffer as long as you can get in a dig at the President. Please note: I am not a Bush supporter, I am a Michael Badnarik supporter. A quick read through my posts will show that. However, it makes me sick to my stomach when people care more about blaming some guy they've never met (especially incorrectly) than the horrible deaths of people they've never met. Your priorities are out of whack. I realize you're trolling, but that doesn't excuse you. Starvation is a bigger issue than which rich white D.C. insider wins the POTUS. I would venture to guess that you've never spent even a week without food; you probably wouldn't be so glib if you'd ever experienced real hunger. Ah well, who knows what the future holds?
You are relying upon an incorrect assumption: that world hunger is due mostly to a shortage of food. yes, technically hunger *is* a 'shortage of food', but what I mean is that there is food enough to feed people, but it just isn't going to those people. In many cases, such as in Swaziland, local authorities refuse to distribute food that is sitting in warehouses locally. Thus the food rots, and the people die. Not because there was no food, and not even because there was no food near them, but because people in power refused to distribute food to them. No matter how much food is produced worldwide, if it is not getting into people's bellies, it's not helping.
I didn't insist on using different words. I insisted that both uses were correct. There's a world of difference. Besides, I've been calling sofas Chesterfields for years, and justifying it based on the fact that people from Canadia[sic] 'do it to'[sic]. :)
You're wrong.
Not just about the correct spelling, but about 'only in America'. In fact, Canada uses that spelling as well. Of course, I am not correcting your spelling of aluminum, as I realize that in other parts of the world, that is the accepted spelling. Wow, funny how that works, isn't it? Realizing that other parts of the world might do things differently? What a fucking concept! Or do you insist that Americans spell curb 'kerb' and tire 'tyre' as well? To-MAY-to or To-MAH-to? Oh fuck, let's call the whole thing off.
You corrected an assertion that I did not make. Besides, companies in every field go out of business every single day. Am I more heartless for mentioning that fact than you are for bemoaning it? It's just the way it goes. My family owned a business at one point, and it went under because of my step-dad's drug use and gambling debts. It was a good company, too. That doesn't mean that I think drug use and gambling are going to go away just from me bitching about it. The harsh fact is, if your business can't survive it doesn't matter why. Would I prefer living in a utopia where no one ever acted in an immoral fashion? Of course. Do I believe that endless bitching about not living in such a society on slashdot is going to bring that state about? Hell no. All I'm saying is that there has been nothing added to this debate in the last 1500 conversations about it I've seen on slashdot, so why not end it? In fact, I'm going to follow my own advice. Feel free to respond if you like, but I am through with this topic.
I'd like to see you say that its ok to do it.
I'll tell you the same thing I told the other troll: you won't see me say any such thing. Nor have you seen me say any such thing. Bzzt. Sorry. Try again.
Did I state anywhere that no company would ever be harmed by piracy? No. I did not state that. It's nice to know that an irrelevant argument, one which I did not even make, is invalid. Good job. I simply stated that video games are in no danger of extinction. This is because the profits being realized by successful game companies are so great that if the current players all suddenly vanished, there would be a new crop in place tomorrow. Are you saying I'm wrong about that? (Note to the pedantic: I realize it might take more than one day. I was using mild exaggeration to underscore my point.) Note that I also did not endorse software piracy at any point, nor did I advance the notion or implication that I am 'special' or better than anyone else, much less everyone else. For the record: I am not a unique snowflake, and I pay for my games. I don't encourage others not to. I simply stated that there will always be people who will pirate games. Again, would you care to contradict me on that point? If you don't care to address the points I actually made, rather than the fanciful imaginations of your fevered brain, please don't bother to respond.
It's real cool to download stuff for free, but the very people who do this will be the ones who cry the loudest when game companies stop producing games because of piracy and lost revenue.
I've been hearing that ever since the great Wing Commander 2 scandal back in the day. You're ignoring two very important facts: Piracy has existed as long as have products to pirate, and there are still so many people paying for games that there is absolutely no danger that they will stop being produced.
If game piracy is such a big problem, how did video games overtake Hollywood as the largest source of entertainment revenue in the US?
This pointless debate is eternal. Some people do not pay for games. Some people do. There is sufficient demand for games to make them extremely profitable if they are written, distributed, and marketed properly. Saying that games should be free is just as insipid and unlikely as saying that everyone should pay for every copy of every game ever played. That isn't how the world works, and the key word is 'works'. For fuck's sake, could we all just shut up about it now, please?
censor: transitive verb:
To examine and expurgate
Which has nothing to do with anyone who wants to hear the message. That's a red herring. If someone wants to say something, and I prevent them from doing so, I am censoring them. That's the basic definition. Location is immaterial, as is audience. That is why I qualified my statement to condemn censorship practiced by government. Also, your attempt to cloud the issue by mentioning 'BSA raids' is laughable. The BSA does not conduct raids. They sometimes send a person along with police who are conducting raids. There's a major difference, as the police are certainly government agents. Also, the ones I found mention of happened outside the US, so the laws of the US do not apply. Additionally, the BSA does not promote censorship. They oppose software piracy, and there's a gigantic difference there. Taking down websites which offer free downloads of copyrighted software is not the same as jailing the authors of politically incorrect missives. Care to throw out some more misinformation? If you would like some evidence of government censorship, check out the lawsuits filed by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent political ads which are unfavorable. That's an example of the government shutting down free speech.
Censorship is not inherently bad. For example, if I didn't let someone lecture on the evils of alcohol in my living room, I would be censoring that person. Do you think I have no right to do that? It is completely different when the government tells me what I can and cannot allow to be said in my own forum. If you can't appreciate the difference between censorship in general and governmental censorship, I feel sorry for you. Besides, what agency is going to 'come to take your words from you' other than the government?
Still, if the upheval is caused or accelerated by human activity, then wouldn't it be even more clever to slow or stop it?
Yes, if your interest is in the continuation of the human species.
But, if I may ask, why in the world do you think it is a bad thing to be interested in the persistence of one's own ass?
Bad? I didn't say it was bad to think this way. I said it was dishonest to represent yourself as a protector of the Earth when you are interested instead in your own continuation upon it. Let's face it: the most realistic solution for the environment, if humans truly negatively impact it, would be the removal of humans. You're never going to get 6 billion plus people to agree on anything, much less act in accord.
In summary: if you are concerned with saving your own ass, say that. Just don't tell me you're trying to save the planet when it does not need saving. Yes, there are honest environmentalists who want to save humanity and do not claim to be saving the planet. Most environmentalists that I've met, however, cloak their true concern behind a bunch of hogwash about 'saving the planet'.
True. All these people worried about 'the Earth' are in reality worried about their own asses. The Earth has, can, and will survive much worse than humanity could ever do without a coordinated intentional effort. All this talk about 'oh no! species are dying!!1!1', as if that has never happened before. New species arise and old ones die all the time. That's like, the natural order of things and stuff. If humans all died tomorrow, this planet would continue to exist quite happily. Now, whether or not humanity should survive is a valid question, but the survival of the planet isn't in doubt at all. That's why all the 'pro-environment' people all seem so disingenuous to me.
Hear, hear!
If I meet one more libertarian who's not voting libertarian (again) because they want to vote for a candidate with 'a chance to win' I'm going to scream. Perhaps if you people voted for the candidate whose platform best represents your views instead of one you think will win, third-party candidates would have a chance. Sure, the money and power aren't there for them right now. Sure, it will take time to effect change. However, if we keep putting off the hard work and compromising our views just to be on the 'winning team', it will NEVER happen. Why the hell do you belong to a third party if you're just going to vote Republican or Democrat anyway? Kinda defeats the purpose of a third party. Since the 1850s, no third party candidate has received a single electoral college vote*. We could change that.
*That I could find. I know for sure that Ross Perot did not receive any, despite getting about 20% of the popular vote, the largest amount for a third-party candidate since the 1850s.
Repetition of an untruth does not make it suddenly true. If you're intrigued by my correction of spelling errors, I feel really sad for you. Of course, that isn't all I do, nor does it mean as much to me as you apparently think. Posting on slashdot is relaxing for me, especially when "people" like you keep responding. You overestimate the time and effort I put in to this, I do believe. Perhaps you underestimate the amusement I get out of it, also. Ah well, you've proven your idiocy long since. What's a bit more? As to trolling for me...good luck. There are many thousands of posts each day, many of which contain errors. If fortune smiles upon me, your trolling will be successful. If not, no biggie. There's no shortage of morons who will defend their mistakes for the full 15 days, as you apparently will. Keep replying, keep repeating. I'll be right here. Oh, and thanks. You're cheaper than a movie, and only slightly dumber than most of them.
Mr. Pot, you seem to be in the habit of calling kettles black.
You are involving yourself with me, even though my concerns are 'trivial'. This despite the fact that I am totally uninterested in your concerns. I also find it amusing that you consider me a dumbass, when you're the one who confuses "it's" and "its" and "who's" and "whose". Interesting take, that. I don't know why you're surprised that I'm replying to you; that's what I do when people reply to me. I wouldn't have involved myself with you past that first post, except that you replied. All I did was correct a few mistakes that you made. There was no reason for me to continue talking to you until you replied. Why, if it is such a bad thing that I am replying to you, do you continue to reply to me? You call my concerns trivial, but how much more so must yours be, if my trivial concerns are of concern to you? I certainly have no problem continuing our conversation for 15 days or 15 years. After all, it would be rude not to reply to someone's communication, wouldn't it? It's not like typing is difficult, nor rebutting your "points", nor pointing out your hypocrisy. I may take a few hours to respond, since I have a job and a life, but rest assured that I will reply...until the 15-day cutoff. I'm quite sure you'll make a stupid mistake in another thread. Perhaps I'll correct it and we can start this all over again. Unfortunately, not even I can correct every mistake on slashdot. Que sera sera.
Who's keeping who going? If you weren't a total idiot, you'd know that neither of us can keep the other going for more than 15 days from the posting of the article. And obviously you don't understand what words mean, or what my standards are. I correct unintentional mistakes. I have no philosophical problem with occasionally intentionally making an error to prove a point, or if (as in your ee cummings reference) it's a stylistic statement. You're continuing to make yourself look bad, and you're going to continue doing so for the rest of your life, I'd wager. I don't know why you're proud of appearing stupid, but apparently it means a great deal to you. You're succeeding brilliantly, good job!
My hypocrisy? In what? Again you attempt to defend yourself by attacking me. However, as I told you, I used the wrong word on purpose. You, the champion of incorrectness, jumped my shit the second that you perceived you had a chance. Yet here you are calling me a hypocrite. Project much?
Also, as I said, it isn't that poor English is necessarily indecipherable. It's that, taken to an extreme, it hampers communication. Sure, this isn't a formal forum. However, bad habits perpetuate themselves outside of informal communication. If you want to seem like an idiot in front of your boss (or teacher, in your case) that's fine with me. I will continue to correct your mistakes if I happen across them. There isn't anything you can do about it. Your position is silly and wrong. You are either too proud to admit this or too stupid to see it. Either way, the result is the same. It would be difficult for me to have any less respect for you, but I'm sure you'll find a way to make it happen. Have fun trying!
How can I accept a 'loss' when there's nothing to lose or win? I proved that you were just as apt to correct perceived wrongs as I am. However, you justify your mistakes with worthless rhetoric. Homonyms do not now and never have shared definitions. Sorry. Wood ewe really want peephole all ways righting inn homonyms? Is it decipherable? Of course. Does it promote good communication? Of course not. You are wrong on this subject, and will never be right. I doubt you'll accept it, but that makes no difference. Your non-belief in the value of coherent language does nothing to diminish its importance. Also, if you truly believed me to be ambiguous, I feel very sorry for you. More likely, you were posturing for effect. At least, I'm willing to grant you the dubious benefit of the doubt.
Well, at least they do have a word for CD-ROM.