Are you calling/. summaries literature? There's a difference between artfully breaking the rules of sense to achieve and intended effect, and breaking them because you're kdawson.
Was there a point to your post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with your parent--if the latter you're a moron, because your post makes no sense, and if the former, why post at all?
Fortunately this is a stupid saying that doesn't work, so it may be safely ignored.
There are a wide range of possible values for 'works,' which range from 'worked that one time when I stood on my head and quacked like a duck,' to 'fucking-bullet-proof.'
Of course, higher values of 'works' cost more, but they sure as hell aren't all the same.
Really? Is the state of your communication such that you're limited to swearing where clearly it doesn't convey any sense whatsoever other than your own limited vocabulary?
English must not be your first language if you think that the use of the word 'fuck' conveyed no meaning in that sentence. It clearly functions as signifier of emotional intensity, which is a perfectly legitimate grammatical function.
Seriously, I've often wondered how people who swear constantly, and use the F-bomb as noun, verb, adverb and pronoun ever communicate anything useful other than their own ignorance and lack of literacy.
Seriously? I've often wondered how prescriptivist morons sleep at night. Doesn't mean they don't, and on the contrary the 'F-bomb' communicates a fuck of a lot more than you think it does.
Ex: In the above sentence, it functions again as an emotional intensifier. This is the most common function of taboo words in everyday speech--to concisely convey emotional states, particularly negative ones. Contrast the above with the following version:
Doesn't mean they don't, and on the contrary the 'F-bomb' communicates a lot more than you think it does.
You might think the two sentences mean the same thing, but that only suggests to me that you are not a native speaker of English, or you're just a moron. Look up 'denotation' and 'connotation.' Denotatively, the sentences do mean more or less the same--connotatively they are radically different.
I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
This is called selection bias--most people, PERIOD, have almost nothing useful or interesting to say and are otherwise full of self-importance. That this applies to most people who swear frequently is not noteworthy.
They use swearing as some sort of over compensation, trying to sound important, but only coming across as the dimwit they are.
As opposed to trying to talk like Henry James? Give me a habitual swearer over someone imitating James anyday (James has his merits, don't get me wrong, but style isn't one of them).
The funny thing is, while I stand with the ACLU on this one, at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow.
Almost as shallow as your opinions on the matter and your grasp of language.
This was my thought--so what if they did? We did it more than 50 years ago, the Teller-Ulam designed warhead dates to 1951. Fusing two atoms is trivial.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure do. But not these ones.
Methane isn't crude oil.
Criminal sanctions have a much higher burden of proof.
Yes.
Thanatocracy. Necrare is a latin word, kratia is a greek word. The greek word for dead is thanatos, hence thanatocracy.
Are you calling /. summaries literature? There's a difference between artfully breaking the rules of sense to achieve and intended effect, and breaking them because you're kdawson.
Didn't think so.
Except the answer to your question was yes...
They're inspected regularly, which is approximately how often the players lose.
Was there a point to your post? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with your parent--if the latter you're a moron, because your post makes no sense, and if the former, why post at all?
Not some, most. The vast and overwhleming majority--so much so in fact, that you are defective if you are not like that.
What?
if you haven't read "The Cyberiad" you should, I know "Cyberiad" seems kinda cheesy, but it was written in the early 70s... )
So...what you're saying...is that it's kinda cheesy?
"PCL PC Load letter? What the fuck is PCL PC Load letter?!?"
It's where they file the TPS reports.
You were modded flamebait but...I mean, come one, we were ALL thinking it.
"If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid."
Fortunately this is a stupid saying that doesn't work, so it may be safely ignored.
There are a wide range of possible values for 'works,' which range from 'worked that one time when I stood on my head and quacked like a duck,' to 'fucking-bullet-proof.'
Of course, higher values of 'works' cost more, but they sure as hell aren't all the same.
That's me Perl hardcore programmer saying.
If your Perl code is anything like your sentences...oh, who am I kidding, it would still make more sense than MY Perl code.
I think they prefer to be called 'the Obese.'
That's because Fosters is Australian for horse piss.
As an underweight person who sits on the computer all day I see this as all good news. My glass is all full.
'Bugger off' comes to mind, but it's really the same thing--bugger just refers to sodomy rather than intercourse.
Really? Is the state of your communication such that you're limited to swearing where clearly it doesn't convey any sense whatsoever other than your own limited vocabulary?
English must not be your first language if you think that the use of the word 'fuck' conveyed no meaning in that sentence. It clearly functions as signifier of emotional intensity, which is a perfectly legitimate grammatical function.
Seriously, I've often wondered how people who swear constantly, and use the F-bomb as noun, verb, adverb and pronoun ever communicate anything useful other than their own ignorance and lack of literacy.
Seriously? I've often wondered how prescriptivist morons sleep at night. Doesn't mean they don't, and on the contrary the 'F-bomb' communicates a fuck of a lot more than you think it does.
Ex: In the above sentence, it functions again as an emotional intensifier. This is the most common function of taboo words in everyday speech--to concisely convey emotional states, particularly negative ones. Contrast the above with the following version:
Doesn't mean they don't, and on the contrary the 'F-bomb' communicates a lot more than you think it does.
You might think the two sentences mean the same thing, but that only suggests to me that you are not a native speaker of English, or you're just a moron. Look up 'denotation' and 'connotation.' Denotatively, the sentences do mean more or less the same--connotatively they are radically different.
I'm not a prude or anything, I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
This is called selection bias--most people, PERIOD, have almost nothing useful or interesting to say and are otherwise full of self-importance. That this applies to most people who swear frequently is not noteworthy.
They use swearing as some sort of over compensation, trying to sound important, but only coming across as the dimwit they are.
As opposed to trying to talk like Henry James? Give me a habitual swearer over someone imitating James anyday (James has his merits, don't get me wrong, but style isn't one of them).
The funny thing is, while I stand with the ACLU on this one, at least on principle, I find that their legal support of such people as some sort of "enlightened" viewpoint is almost just as shallow.
Almost as shallow as your opinions on the matter and your grasp of language.
Grow up.
Suits? He's a dangerous pirate! They're in full SWAT gear.
The Teller-Ulam design uses that, but a basic particle accelerator would work too.
This was my thought--so what if they did? We did it more than 50 years ago, the Teller-Ulam designed warhead dates to 1951. Fusing two atoms is trivial.