The English language, as far as I know, generally misses two things:
- A pluralised second person (Several latin languages have them. See: Spanish, with -ais)
- A non-genitive third person pronoun (as "it" tends to be something of an insult when used with regard to people)
"Y'all" merrily fills one of those voids, yet is generally despised by those who fail to see its utility. Not only that, but with the apostrophe, it's technically correct.
There is "you all" and a few other multi-word forms that accomplish the same feature, but how is that any different from "do not" and "don't".
I am from Texas, and possess whatever accent I so choose (generally, I'm accused of being from Canada, regardless of where I am at the time). My only regional giveaway is that I use "y'all", not because I'm from Texas, but because it's an exceptionally useful word - same as any other contraction.
Similarly, that's also where you'll see the 417-3 votes, where somebody will sponsor a bill against killing kittens, with a line item here or there including funding for pork projects. Nobody can vote against your amendment without voting for killing kittens. And the three people who do vote against it will have fun come re-election time, when the opponent saturates TV with commercials that state how much the guy enjoys killing kittens.
You can vote against a law that makes killing kittens illegal without supporting the killing of kittens. That's not a logical argument. The trick is not letting the other guy paint you as such to a public that doesn't understand the fallacy there and a media that typically just wants to ignore it (helping the first part).
No kidding. Before the Wii, I hadn't bought a single console when it was new/over $100. Games are cheaper, accessories are cheaper, you have a better idea what's good and what isn't. It's all around win.
I'd agree with you that both parties suck, but I think the past 7 years have shown
that one party sucks a whole lot worse than the other, and until we can manage a
massive overhaul of the electoral system (HA!) I think our best bet is to keep
Republicans out of any office higher than local dogcatcher.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Ironically, while we debate endlessly about a corporation managing to pull it off, gummint's been managing to do so quite a bit the last several years (at least. Quite probably closer to 150).
Illegal commercial gambling across state and international borders is a crime," said U.S Attorney Catherine Hanaway of the Eastern District of Missouri in a press release. "Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses. This indictment is but one step in a series of actions designed to punish and seize the profits of individuals who disregard federal and state laws.
There are SO many reasons to love this horse shit:
1. It's so arbitrarily illegal by his definition.
2. It's a little redundantly redundant. ILLEGAL STUFF IS A CRIME!!!
3. According to what he says, these illegal internet gambling operations harm all the legal internet gambling operations (of which there apparently are none because the federal government just arbitrarily decided to outlaw it) OR the "legal" casinos who contribute to campaigns.
They're talking about these guys like they committed a huge crime, when from the looks of it at least one of the laws they snagged them on was only passed last week. Good golly get those dog-killing baby-eaters off the street before they make Charles Barkley spend another 20 million on accident!
It's pure, almost laughable vendetta.
Internet gambling does not allow the government to take their cut and is therefore in direct competition with them.
I'd like to know if this is definitely true or not. It'd be hilarious if they just hated them because there is no way to make them pay taxes under current federal law, so instead they just make it illegal. ...a little scary too, but what is there that the federal government does these days that isn't?
On the other hand, the online gambling industry is one that is notoriously rife with fraud, and it's entirely possible that these guys are scum that have been doing what they're accused of or worse. For the sake of their industry, I hope that they have realized the scrutiny that they've been under and have made very diligent efforts to stay clean and legitimate and can prove so in court. Otherwise, these two may very well have doomed their entire industry, even the players that are 100% honest and that just want to provide an entertainment service.
In fairness, that's also quite possible. So hard to tell with the media being a giant festering wound of inaccurate and misleading reporting these days. As such, my judgement is suspended until later on this, not that it'll change anything that happens in the least. Oh wait, my vote matters. Sorry, forgot.
Slashdot Mirror
- A pluralised second person (Several latin languages have them. See: Spanish, with -ais)
- A non-genitive third person pronoun (as "it" tends to be something of an insult when used with regard to people)
"Y'all" merrily fills one of those voids, yet is generally despised by those who fail to see its utility. Not only that, but with the apostrophe, it's technically correct.
There is "you all" and a few other multi-word forms that accomplish the same feature, but how is that any different from "do not" and "don't".
I am from Texas, and possess whatever accent I so choose (generally, I'm accused of being from Canada, regardless of where I am at the time). My only regional giveaway is that I use "y'all", not because I'm from Texas, but because it's an exceptionally useful word - same as any other contraction.
Now sod off, wanker.
You can vote against a law that makes killing kittens illegal without supporting the killing of kittens. That's not a logical argument. The trick is not letting the other guy paint you as such to a public that doesn't understand the fallacy there and a media that typically just wants to ignore it (helping the first part).
Yeah, I have some old auto/jet leaflets from around that time with it in there as well.
No kidding. Before the Wii, I hadn't bought a single console when it was new/over $100. Games are cheaper, accessories are cheaper, you have a better idea what's good and what isn't. It's all around win.
:D
The Wii is just too damn cool though
Big problem, small solution. Bravo!
Ironically, while we debate endlessly about a corporation managing to pull it off, gummint's been managing to do so quite a bit the last several years (at least. Quite probably closer to 150).
1. It's so arbitrarily illegal by his definition.
2. It's a little redundantly redundant. ILLEGAL STUFF IS A CRIME!!!
3. According to what he says, these illegal internet gambling operations harm all the legal internet gambling operations (of which there apparently are none because the federal government just arbitrarily decided to outlaw it) OR the "legal" casinos who contribute to campaigns.
They're talking about these guys like they committed a huge crime, when from the looks of it at least one of the laws they snagged them on was only passed last week. Good golly get those dog-killing baby-eaters off the street before they make Charles Barkley spend another 20 million on accident!
It's pure, almost laughable vendetta.
I'd like to know if this is definitely true or not. It'd be hilarious if they just hated them because there is no way to make them pay taxes under current federal law, so instead they just make it illegal.
In fairness, that's also quite possible. So hard to tell with the media being a giant festering wound of inaccurate and misleading reporting these days. As such, my judgement is suspended until later on this, not that it'll change anything that happens in the least. Oh wait, my vote matters. Sorry, forgot.
They aren't very intelligent if they post about it publicly online. Certainly you know that different people are intelligent in different ways.