The problem isn't the preposition. The problem is around the word "Sloppy".
Incorrect: "you'll look like sloppy to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look like you are sloppy to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look like slop to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look sloppy to the people who do."
So, not only are you a hypocrite for complaining about the previous poster's poor grammar, but you are obviously an arrogant hypocrite for not only complaining about other peoples grammar in the same post that you used poor grammar, but also because even when your mistake was pointed out, instead of looking closely at what you wrote, you assumed that your grammar was perfect instead of doing the proof reading you claim is required to be respectful of other readers.
You should immediately make a public apology for your rudeness to every single reader of slashdot, and specifically to the original poster for complaining about his behaviour when you do not behave any better.
You should also apologize to every slashdot reader for the lack of respect you showed them when you wrote:
"It's not high an mighty, it is simply paying attention to the details."
As you clearly did not "simply pay attention" to the detail that the saying (which is correctly spelled in my post) is "high and mighty".
"Remember that you're penning/typing your message not for yourself but for others to read, you should at least be respectful of the people reading and proof your own work."
This is why it is a bad idea to get too high and mighty concerning spelling and grammar. It eventually makes you a hypocrite. By YOUR standards, you are being disrespectful to me and every other Slashdot reader, and that just isn't nice.
"Do you really think they would be dumb enough to stick a known pathogen in someone's body?"
I'm not arguing for or against the yeast, but there is absolutely no question that the medical industry would put known pathogens into patients. Case in point... Immunizations.
"But a dude driving his bright red mid-life crisis sports car sends a different message than one driving a similarly priced, but more elegantly appointed luxo-car."
Yes, that message is that the bright red mid-life crisis sports car says "I want lots of women to have sex with me." while the more elegantly appointed luxo-car says "I want lots of women who actually understand money to have sex with me."
No, I'm just not an dumb ass. There are plenty of ways to cut and drown out noise. Hundreds of people in a small space are going to create noise. The solutions here are not complicated, and they are not trying to convince everyone to sit quietly for 12-15 hours. You just don't want to implement the simple effective solutions.
And, seriously. Your complaining that people laugh? laugh?!?!?! What are you some kind of wanna-be super villain?
Complaints about people talking on flights are just people complaining because they like to complain. Earplug technology has been available for 1000s of years. I used to think that people who are noise sensitive and have decided to climb into a confined space for hours with a few hundred other people without earplugs were stupid. Over time I have come to the conclusion that it is less stupidity, and more of them just being assholes who want to control other peoples behavior.
The kind of woman that yells "sorry about your penis" is not "intelligent". She is exactly the kind of woman that has sex with men for goods, services, and money. She just hates herself for it, so tries to over compensate by talking big. You seem to be confused between women who CLAIM they don't car about money, and those that really don't.
Women complaining about men with expensive cars is like women claiming they want a sensitive guy. They will make the claims all day long, and spend the night banging the guy with the expensive car. Men with expensive cars are saying the one thing that attracts women who will have sex with them. They are saying "I am willing to spend lots of money to get laid". Underestimating how well letting women know that they can get goods and services from a man while allowing them to maintain the idea that they are not prostitutes would be to deny thousands of years worth of male female courting.
Nope. I wasn't trying to correct the spelling. I just made a typo or spelling error. Hard to say which, as I wasn't thinking real hard about the spelling of that word. I capitalized it as an emphasis on that word because border is definitely not what it was doing.
You are the one who keeps claiming that the 3 year olds you have met are incapable of performing tasks that 3 year olds of normal intelligence perform easily. If you have a better word to describe people who are of below normal intelligence, you hare welcome to offer it up.
"Step 2: deny any scientific studies or expert statements"
When the "scientific studies" or "expert" statements conflict with every day verifiable evidence, then clearly, they are neither "scientific" nor are they "experts". We have had a huge jerk jerk going on with "child development experts" since the seventies. Someone throws out a touchy feely theory, and they all pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are. The entire field is so badly filled with quacks as to be worthless. It is as bad as the diet industry, and it's "science" and "experts" are about as good.
"Step 3: claim to be correct"
Are you really suggesting that anyone including you would do any different when they just finished explaining why they are right?
"Step 4: repeat"
Yes, every time you point to children that are retarded either due to genetics or environment, I will repeat that those children are dumb. Not normal. Every time you point to an "expert" or "scientific" study that contradicts the facts that are readily available to anyone who cares to look, Yes, I will repeat that they are neither "scientific" nor "experts".
"That's very clever of you. I'm at a loss to respond further. Have fun misunderstanding lots of things and "winning" arguments about them."
That sounds just like they guys trying convince me that there is some supernatural being that sent his only son to save my soul. They have the same kind of "scientific" studies and "expert" statements. Then when you can verify that they are wrong, they end with a final statement just like yours.
No, it does not BOARDER on thoughtcrime. It IS thoughtcrime. Just as much as WANTING to sneaking your coworkers tasty looking lunch out of the office fridge to it is not stealing, but actually doing it is. Getting fired for the first would be getting fired for a thoughtcrime. Getting fired for the second would be getting fired for stealing.
Your link points to a 'study' that claims dogs are equivalent to 18 month year olds. First. They are also wrong. Whether they are suffering from the common insanity of thinking that dog are human, or because like you, they are only familiar with poorly parented retarded human children, but their claims that a dog is as advanced as an 18 month old human is wishful thinking at best.
I'm not sure if your point with this article is to show that your previous argument was wrong, that you recognize that there is mental instability surrounding dogs, you are a victim of that kind of mental instability, or you just didn't understand the article.
Whatever it is, it doesn't in any way support your claim about 3 year olds.
"I've dealt with plenty of 3 year olds, and even remember being 3 years old myself. Most of the time, they're just saying what they think they're supposed to say."
Great. So, you have confirmed that your experience is with poorly parented children. No wonder you think they are all retarded. You have seen even the little liars that you are familiar with planning ahead. Why do you think they are lying to you. Unless you are consciously teaching them to be liars by telling them outright "Tell me what I want to hear." Your three year olds are considering that what they say to you is going to result in either punishment or reward. Thus they take action now because of what they think will happen in the future.
No, I have had many 3 year olds clearly explain in English what they think. If you cannot tell the difference between a human speaking English and a dog, you have bigger problems than wanting kids to be retarded.
Sorry to tell you this, but 3 year olds are PLENTY capable of understanding the future and making plans as well as prepare for them. I have dealt with plenty of 3 year olds. The reason it appears that they cannot is because most of them are lied to enough that telling them something is going to happen in the future is the same as any other pretend thing they see, and/or nobody bothers to honestly discuss the ideas of past/present/future with them. Anyone who spends any amount of time with 3 year olds who are not retarded will have sat and listened to a child rattle on about what their plans are for the next 10 minutes, 2 hours, or day. The fact that many of them give up on talking to adults by the age of three and why so many adults go out of their way to make children dumb might be a more worthy study.
The debate isn't whether children move from a point that they are incapable of understanding concepts and perform actions to a point where they can. The debate is at what point that happens. This "study" is claiming that 3 year olds cannot connect the dots between very closely related cause and effect. That is simply BS. Just talk to a 3 year old that is into something like Pokemon. They will show that they can make very complex connections indeed. The problem with this kind of study is that they take a bunch of kids who have been poorly parented, and then make the conclusion that it must be impossible to teach them.
On a regular basis, I see exactly how kids are actively taught not to follow directions, and are actively discouraged from making basic connections between ideas. Unless the "researchers" went WAY out of their way to find kids that have not been taught to not think, their data is tainted beyond use.
Seriously. This study is simply trying to make excuses for negligent parenting, which is in epidemic proportions now. Kids learn. Heck, ANIMALS learn. Sometimes it takes more than one time of telling telling them, or of them being in an uncomfortable/comfortable situation that they do not want/want to repeat. That does not mean that they are incapable of making the connections.
I have a kid, and I can say that you are simply wrong. Rational people can make rational conclusions irrelevant of whether they have kids or not. Nut jobs just change their irrational ranting to match their current situation. I have no fear of drawings of Bart plowing Lisa doing any harm to my child. A law that gets you thrown in jail for drawing pictures of underage people naked? That causes me to fear for my child. My son turning thirteen and drawing a picture of that cute girl in his class naked doesn't seem impossible at all.
That is an interesting idea. Not the most practical for day to day refrigerators, but if it really uses as little energy as it claims, it would be ideal for replacing the "soda" fridges that many people have.
You are going to need to think of an even better term that "climate change". The climate always has changed, and always will change, so the term is not going to have the impact that you hope.
Please let it include "Own it on DVD". I can accept the idea that I only "Own" that one copy, but watching commercials telling me that I can "Own" a movie, then listening to MAFIA agent and those that believe them, explain how I don't own the movie, but only "licensed" it, just grates my hide.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't the preposition. The problem is around the word "Sloppy".
Incorrect: "you'll look like sloppy to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look like you are sloppy to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look like slop to the people who do."
Correct: "you'll look sloppy to the people who do."
So, not only are you a hypocrite for complaining about the previous poster's poor grammar, but you are obviously an arrogant hypocrite for not only complaining about other peoples grammar in the same post that you used poor grammar, but also because even when your mistake was pointed out, instead of looking closely at what you wrote, you assumed that your grammar was perfect instead of doing the proof reading you claim is required to be respectful of other readers.
You should immediately make a public apology for your rudeness to every single reader of slashdot, and specifically to the original poster for complaining about his behaviour when you do not behave any better.
You should also apologize to every slashdot reader for the lack of respect you showed them when you wrote:
"It's not high an mighty, it is simply paying attention to the details."
As you clearly did not "simply pay attention" to the detail that the saying (which is correctly spelled in my post) is "high and mighty".
"you'll look like sloppy to the people who do."
"Remember that you're penning/typing your message not for yourself but for others to read, you should at least be respectful of the people reading and proof your own work."
This is why it is a bad idea to get too high and mighty concerning spelling and grammar. It eventually makes you a hypocrite. By YOUR standards, you are being disrespectful to me and every other Slashdot reader, and that just isn't nice.
"Do you really think they would be dumb enough to stick a known pathogen in someone's body?"
I'm not arguing for or against the yeast, but there is absolutely no question that the medical industry would put known pathogens into patients. Case in point... Immunizations.
"But a dude driving his bright red mid-life crisis sports car sends a different message than one driving a similarly priced, but more elegantly appointed luxo-car."
Yes, that message is that the bright red mid-life crisis sports car says "I want lots of women to have sex with me." while the more elegantly appointed luxo-car says "I want lots of women who actually understand money to have sex with me."
Sure I do. They just like to have sex with men who spend money on them just like the ones without a sense of humor.
Try looking up the word "Irony".
No, I'm just not an dumb ass. There are plenty of ways to cut and drown out noise. Hundreds of people in a small space are going to create noise. The solutions here are not complicated, and they are not trying to convince everyone to sit quietly for 12-15 hours. You just don't want to implement the simple effective solutions.
And, seriously. Your complaining that people laugh? laugh?!?!?! What are you some kind of wanna-be super villain?
Complaints about people talking on flights are just people complaining because they like to complain. Earplug technology has been available for 1000s of years. I used to think that people who are noise sensitive and have decided to climb into a confined space for hours with a few hundred other people without earplugs were stupid. Over time I have come to the conclusion that it is less stupidity, and more of them just being assholes who want to control other peoples behavior.
The kind of woman that yells "sorry about your penis" is not "intelligent". She is exactly the kind of woman that has sex with men for goods, services, and money. She just hates herself for it, so tries to over compensate by talking big. You seem to be confused between women who CLAIM they don't car about money, and those that really don't.
Women complaining about men with expensive cars is like women claiming they want a sensitive guy. They will make the claims all day long, and spend the night banging the guy with the expensive car. Men with expensive cars are saying the one thing that attracts women who will have sex with them. They are saying "I am willing to spend lots of money to get laid". Underestimating how well letting women know that they can get goods and services from a man while allowing them to maintain the idea that they are not prostitutes would be to deny thousands of years worth of male female courting.
Nope. I wasn't trying to correct the spelling. I just made a typo or spelling error. Hard to say which, as I wasn't thinking real hard about the spelling of that word. I capitalized it as an emphasis on that word because border is definitely not what it was doing.
"Step 1: call people stupid "
You are the one who keeps claiming that the 3 year olds you have met are incapable of performing tasks that 3 year olds of normal intelligence perform easily. If you have a better word to describe people who are of below normal intelligence, you hare welcome to offer it up.
"Step 2: deny any scientific studies or expert statements"
When the "scientific studies" or "expert" statements conflict with every day verifiable evidence, then clearly, they are neither "scientific" nor are they "experts". We have had a huge jerk jerk going on with "child development experts" since the seventies. Someone throws out a touchy feely theory, and they all pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are. The entire field is so badly filled with quacks as to be worthless. It is as bad as the diet industry, and it's "science" and "experts" are about as good. "Step 3: claim to be correct" Are you really suggesting that anyone including you would do any different when they just finished explaining why they are right? "Step 4: repeat" Yes, every time you point to children that are retarded either due to genetics or environment, I will repeat that those children are dumb. Not normal. Every time you point to an "expert" or "scientific" study that contradicts the facts that are readily available to anyone who cares to look, Yes, I will repeat that they are neither "scientific" nor "experts". "That's very clever of you. I'm at a loss to respond further. Have fun misunderstanding lots of things and "winning" arguments about them."
That sounds just like they guys trying convince me that there is some supernatural being that sent his only son to save my soul. They have the same kind of "scientific" studies and "expert" statements. Then when you can verify that they are wrong, they end with a final statement just like yours.
No, it does not BOARDER on thoughtcrime. It IS thoughtcrime. Just as much as WANTING to sneaking your coworkers tasty looking lunch out of the office fridge to it is not stealing, but actually doing it is. Getting fired for the first would be getting fired for a thoughtcrime. Getting fired for the second would be getting fired for stealing.
Your link points to a 'study' that claims dogs are equivalent to 18 month year olds. First. They are also wrong. Whether they are suffering from the common insanity of thinking that dog are human, or because like you, they are only familiar with poorly parented retarded human children, but their claims that a dog is as advanced as an 18 month old human is wishful thinking at best.
I'm not sure if your point with this article is to show that your previous argument was wrong, that you recognize that there is mental instability surrounding dogs, you are a victim of that kind of mental instability, or you just didn't understand the article.
Whatever it is, it doesn't in any way support your claim about 3 year olds.
"I've dealt with plenty of 3 year olds, and even remember being 3 years old myself. Most of the time, they're just saying what they think they're supposed to say."
Great. So, you have confirmed that your experience is with poorly parented children. No wonder you think they are all retarded. You have seen even the little liars that you are familiar with planning ahead. Why do you think they are lying to you. Unless you are consciously teaching them to be liars by telling them outright "Tell me what I want to hear." Your three year olds are considering that what they say to you is going to result in either punishment or reward. Thus they take action now because of what they think will happen in the future.
No, I have had many 3 year olds clearly explain in English what they think. If you cannot tell the difference between a human speaking English and a dog, you have bigger problems than wanting kids to be retarded.
Sorry to tell you this, but 3 year olds are PLENTY capable of understanding the future and making plans as well as prepare for them. I have dealt with plenty of 3 year olds. The reason it appears that they cannot is because most of them are lied to enough that telling them something is going to happen in the future is the same as any other pretend thing they see, and/or nobody bothers to honestly discuss the ideas of past/present/future with them. Anyone who spends any amount of time with 3 year olds who are not retarded will have sat and listened to a child rattle on about what their plans are for the next 10 minutes, 2 hours, or day. The fact that many of them give up on talking to adults by the age of three and why so many adults go out of their way to make children dumb might be a more worthy study.
Maniac Mansion.
The debate isn't whether children move from a point that they are incapable of understanding concepts and perform actions to a point where they can. The debate is at what point that happens. This "study" is claiming that 3 year olds cannot connect the dots between very closely related cause and effect. That is simply BS. Just talk to a 3 year old that is into something like Pokemon. They will show that they can make very complex connections indeed. The problem with this kind of study is that they take a bunch of kids who have been poorly parented, and then make the conclusion that it must be impossible to teach them.
On a regular basis, I see exactly how kids are actively taught not to follow directions, and are actively discouraged from making basic connections between ideas. Unless the "researchers" went WAY out of their way to find kids that have not been taught to not think, their data is tainted beyond use.
Seriously. This study is simply trying to make excuses for negligent parenting, which is in epidemic proportions now. Kids learn. Heck, ANIMALS learn. Sometimes it takes more than one time of telling telling them, or of them being in an uncomfortable/comfortable situation that they do not want/want to repeat. That does not mean that they are incapable of making the connections.
I have a kid, and I can say that you are simply wrong. Rational people can make rational conclusions irrelevant of whether they have kids or not. Nut jobs just change their irrational ranting to match their current situation. I have no fear of drawings of Bart plowing Lisa doing any harm to my child. A law that gets you thrown in jail for drawing pictures of underage people naked? That causes me to fear for my child. My son turning thirteen and drawing a picture of that cute girl in his class naked doesn't seem impossible at all.
That is an interesting idea. Not the most practical for day to day refrigerators, but if it really uses as little energy as it claims, it would be ideal for replacing the "soda" fridges that many people have.
You are going to need to think of an even better term that "climate change". The climate always has changed, and always will change, so the term is not going to have the impact that you hope.
The problem with that example is that clearly, most of those that are "experts" in economics are also so ignorant of economics that it is laughable.
Please let it include "Own it on DVD". I can accept the idea that I only "Own" that one copy, but watching commercials telling me that I can "Own" a movie, then listening to MAFIA agent and those that believe them, explain how I don't own the movie, but only "licensed" it, just grates my hide.