There is a difference between making a mistake in vocabulary and choosing whether or not to follow a rule which is believed to be incorrect. Grammar rules change over time. I hope that this is one of them and I refuse to accept and practice a faulty rule. Your reply was just as "pedantic" as mine. You're instructing that I follow a construct with which I do not agree, and I will do no such thing. The "your vs you're", "there vs their vs they're", et al are commonly-made and consistently-frustrating mistakes that demonstrate a lack of understanding of words. You argue that my "mistake", as you deem it, shows a lack of understanding, and I replied to demonstrate to you that I do not lack the understanding, I lack acceptance.
If Phrogman wishes to explain that he rejects traditional English spelling conventions do to their lack of consistency, then I welcome him to do so. If Phrogman, however, was unaware of his error, he certainly is now - be that from my correction or your defense thereof.
That's debatable. There are many of us who hold that to be incorrect and moronic. The quotation mark serves to demonstrate something that someone else said. There was no period in that part of his/her text, therefore there shouldn't be one within my quotes. The period signifies the end of my sentence. The quote is a part of my sentence, and not the other way around.
Unless, of course, she keeps her married name. At which point, the only logical choice is for Mr. Smith to change his last name and create a Savage-Santorum-esque neologism for his formal surname.
Do you realize you wrote nearly 3 paragraphs about ONE author whose name I mentioned off the top of my head and didn't even address the actual content?
Chomsky is probably fairly wealthy; he's certainly famous. Zinn is also very wealthy I would imagine. Voltairine de Cleyre? I have no idea, nor do I care. I don't recall every saying that these people were model human beings, or free from error. What I said was that the writings of these people reflected what socialism REALLY is, as opposed to marxism, maoism, etc. So, great job. Kudos on switching gears of the conversation.
Here's the worst part for me - you further illustrate your complete misunderstanding of socialism with the following quote taken from your digression: "Now if Chomsky was so happy to promote socialism and a truly egalitarian society (where, of course, we're all taxed to provide for the weak or worthless...) then Chomsky would be giving away his books for 100% free..." Again, this is not socialism. This might be similar to communism, or even state socialism (again, a misnomer) where there actually exists a government entity or state to tax individuals, and there actually exist wages to be taxed. However, this is not similar to socialism. In socialism, Chomsky wouldn't be "giving away his books for free". To put it in crude terms, he would be providing a needed service, and others would provide needed services to him. Free (as in beer) is a concept of a society where monetary systems exist, which, again, is not relevant in true socialism.
Also, you mention the price of Chomsky's book. I don't seek to defend Chomsky, and he's certainly not my idol. At the same time, I am pretty sure Chomsky isn't publishing his books himself. I am pretty certain it is a publishing company setting the price, and taking most of the profits from that price along with the other capitalist members of the circle, like the book store (much as performing artists receive very little money per album sold - less than 10%). Is Chomsky still making too much money? Probably. Should he be redistributing that wealth more altruistically? Probably. Is he a model human being? I don't know, and I certainly don't know where or not that or any part of your argument is relevant to the original post where I said that someone was quoting communism, or socialist-disguised fascism, and wrongfully calling it socialism.
So, have a good week. It's been great chatting with you. I encourage you to educate yourself about socialism, or any social theory. I will be sure to do the same.
Your post just further underlines the purpose of my original post. You site Marx and Engels as true socialists. Marx and Engels were communists and state socialists (state socialism is a complete misnomer since a state is by nature not socialist). Yes, some of those societies were implemented "correctly" as maoist, marxist, etc. None of these is socialism. This is the whole point. From each according to his ability... from the Communist Manifesto, not any socialist doctrine. The reason I listed the particular group of authors is because they actually ARE socialists. Many people lump socialism, communism, state socialism (again, a misnomer), marxism, et al into one group, but they are terribly far apart.
I wouldn't like state ownership in my backyard either, and neither would any socialist who understands socialism, and doesn't confuse it with some other school of thought. I own the Communist Manifesto, and I've read it as well. It's a great piece of historical literature, but it's just not socialist literature.
No, the point is that any time a government TELLS you what to do it is NOT socialism. A leader being a self-proclaimed socialist because he or she subscribes to socialist thought does not make that government socialist. The Nazis (National Socialists) were NOT socialists, they were fascists (minus the religious overtones), yet they called themselves socialists.
This is EXACTLY what I was saying the problem was with your post. Socialism IS NOT these things your are reporting. If you understood socialism by reading true socialist thought, rather then by studying governments which have labeled themselves incorrectly as socialist because it gained popular support, then you would understand the difference. You weren't born under iron-fisted socialism, because there is no such thing as iron-fisted socialism, but you may very well have been born under a dictatorship that falsely called itself socialist because it was a grassroots label, and therefore popular. Hell, they may even have employed pseudo-socialistic programs to disguise their tyranny.
What I'm saying is this: socialism is not inherently evil. If one wants to learn what socialism is, one should read Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Zinn, or de Cleyre. However, most people's education of socialism comes from the known failed "socialist" societies like East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Vietnam, China, etc. Of course, people who understand socialism also understand that these societies were CLEARLY horrible dictatorships posing as communist countries. Also, people who understand socialism understand that communism IS NOT socialism, nor is Marxism, or any other bullshit econo-socio construct that gets lumped together with socialism, which is an entirely separate school of thought.
If I call myself a Christian and kill millions of people in the name of god, does that mean Christianity is evil, or does it mean I'm a whack job who doesn't represent Christianity? This is the same issue we have currently against Muslims in America. A group of extremist fuckheads call themselves Muslims and take actions completely actions the ideology of Islam and masses of Americans label Islam as a terrorist religion.
I am in no way saying that you don't have the right to abhor socialism, or to value another school of thought. You certainly do, and you certainly should have your opinion. My problem is that your opinion is (at least ostensibly) based on complete fallacy, and you are spreading that fallacy. You experienced and/or learned about things that terrible people did while waving a socialist (or more likely communist) flag and you label socialism as the evil. If you understood socialism, you would understand that those societies could not have been further from socialism.
are you saying that embargoes are socialistic? i may have misunderstood what you said, but if not, please try to not further the already piss-poor education that most of us have regarding socialism. while embargoes (or even walls a la Berlin) may have played a large historical part in societies which called themselves socialist, communist, marxist, or otherwise, it certainly does not mean that embargoes and the likes are inherent or even remotely related to socialism. it happens far too often where someone takes an element of a society or government that labeled itself as one of the aforementioned groups, and uses that element metonymously with socialism. regurgitating misconception effects miseducation.
of course, if i misunderstood your post, please disregard the previous.
not sure there is any inherent normality/abnormality to either one, or whether that matters. the point is more that if the parent is browsing pornography, playing WoW, looking at lolcats or any other internet meme to the point of it becoming an obstacle for the child, it is a problem. in other words:
looking at porn != bad
looking at porn so often that your child not only notices but competes with porn for attention = bad.
how does that get marked "funny". it's a complete troll, and the irony is that it's a complaint about not posting anything worth a damn, yet it itself is not worth a damn. so, i acknowledge that this post is equally worthless, and should, therefore, not be awarded any honors, but i feel that its content is necessary, as it points out the travesty of the previous post.
because offering free shipping is seen as a way of issuing a larger discount through subterfuge. if the cost of the book is, for example, 10, then the maximum discount would be 0,50 euros, so the cheapest they can sell the book for is 9,50. with, say, 2 for shipping, the cheapest cost-to-customer should be 11,50. by removing shipping, the cost-to-customer becomes 9,50, which is less than the pseudo-establish minimum price. yes, by definition, you're correct in believing the shipping price is irrelevant, but i think what france is saying (excuse the metonymy) is that it believes that amazon is circumventing the regulation by offering alternative discounts. i could be wrong, but i would assume there is something implicit here about fair competition. i believe they limit the discount to avoid price dumping, which creates unfair competition for smaller businesses; offering free shipping may be seen as price dumping, in cases where explicit price dumping is banned through legislation.
though our system technically contains more than two parties, it is effectively a two-party system, and has had outcomes in only those two parties (or their historical equivalents) for the last 200+ years. similarly, when we talk about other parties gaining support, it's generally in very low numbers. due to campaign financing, primaries, partisanship, etc, it's nearly impossible for an outside party to stand a chance.
for the real "keith moon feel", you just have to get sloppy drunk and pass out mid-song. for a more authentic touch, someone from the audience should take over for you. the john bonham mod comes with an optional spanking fish.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to be pedantic or a contrarian prick, instead I'm merely pointing out that in the US there is only one form of the word "practice".
s/do/due. dammit :-)
There is a difference between making a mistake in vocabulary and choosing whether or not to follow a rule which is believed to be incorrect. Grammar rules change over time. I hope that this is one of them and I refuse to accept and practice a faulty rule. Your reply was just as "pedantic" as mine. You're instructing that I follow a construct with which I do not agree, and I will do no such thing. The "your vs you're", "there vs their vs they're", et al are commonly-made and consistently-frustrating mistakes that demonstrate a lack of understanding of words. You argue that my "mistake", as you deem it, shows a lack of understanding, and I replied to demonstrate to you that I do not lack the understanding, I lack acceptance. If Phrogman wishes to explain that he rejects traditional English spelling conventions do to their lack of consistency, then I welcome him to do so. If Phrogman, however, was unaware of his error, he certainly is now - be that from my correction or your defense thereof.
That's debatable. There are many of us who hold that to be incorrect and moronic. The quotation mark serves to demonstrate something that someone else said. There was no period in that part of his/her text, therefore there shouldn't be one within my quotes. The period signifies the end of my sentence. The quote is a part of my sentence, and not the other way around.
I'm still trying to figure out how he/she owns "on the internet".
Unless, of course, she keeps her married name. At which point, the only logical choice is for Mr. Smith to change his last name and create a Savage-Santorum-esque neologism for his formal surname.
It's "Too $hort". Even when he writes his name, he's got money on his mind.
I don't know why everyone is ignoring this post. He got it, guys. He figured out the key. Alert the media, we've got a scholar here.
Replace "banging-hot" with "disproportionately-skinny and negatively-affecting female self-image" and you and I are in exact agreement
this HAS to be the first manfred mann reference on slashdot. at least, i hope so. well played, sir.
Psst...your complex is showing
Beautiful pun, if that was your intention. So far, I don't think the other posters have gotten it. It was glorious!
Do you realize you wrote nearly 3 paragraphs about ONE author whose name I mentioned off the top of my head and didn't even address the actual content?
Chomsky is probably fairly wealthy; he's certainly famous. Zinn is also very wealthy I would imagine. Voltairine de Cleyre? I have no idea, nor do I care. I don't recall every saying that these people were model human beings, or free from error. What I said was that the writings of these people reflected what socialism REALLY is, as opposed to marxism, maoism, etc. So, great job. Kudos on switching gears of the conversation.
Here's the worst part for me - you further illustrate your complete misunderstanding of socialism with the following quote taken from your digression: "Now if Chomsky was so happy to promote socialism and a truly egalitarian society (where, of course, we're all taxed to provide for the weak or worthless...) then Chomsky would be giving away his books for 100% free..." Again, this is not socialism. This might be similar to communism, or even state socialism (again, a misnomer) where there actually exists a government entity or state to tax individuals, and there actually exist wages to be taxed. However, this is not similar to socialism. In socialism, Chomsky wouldn't be "giving away his books for free". To put it in crude terms, he would be providing a needed service, and others would provide needed services to him. Free (as in beer) is a concept of a society where monetary systems exist, which, again, is not relevant in true socialism.
Also, you mention the price of Chomsky's book. I don't seek to defend Chomsky, and he's certainly not my idol. At the same time, I am pretty sure Chomsky isn't publishing his books himself. I am pretty certain it is a publishing company setting the price, and taking most of the profits from that price along with the other capitalist members of the circle, like the book store (much as performing artists receive very little money per album sold - less than 10%). Is Chomsky still making too much money? Probably. Should he be redistributing that wealth more altruistically? Probably. Is he a model human being? I don't know, and I certainly don't know where or not that or any part of your argument is relevant to the original post where I said that someone was quoting communism, or socialist-disguised fascism, and wrongfully calling it socialism.
So, have a good week. It's been great chatting with you. I encourage you to educate yourself about socialism, or any social theory. I will be sure to do the same.
Your post just further underlines the purpose of my original post. You site Marx and Engels as true socialists. Marx and Engels were communists and state socialists (state socialism is a complete misnomer since a state is by nature not socialist). Yes, some of those societies were implemented "correctly" as maoist, marxist, etc. None of these is socialism. This is the whole point. From each according to his ability... from the Communist Manifesto, not any socialist doctrine. The reason I listed the particular group of authors is because they actually ARE socialists. Many people lump socialism, communism, state socialism (again, a misnomer), marxism, et al into one group, but they are terribly far apart. I wouldn't like state ownership in my backyard either, and neither would any socialist who understands socialism, and doesn't confuse it with some other school of thought. I own the Communist Manifesto, and I've read it as well. It's a great piece of historical literature, but it's just not socialist literature.
No, the point is that any time a government TELLS you what to do it is NOT socialism. A leader being a self-proclaimed socialist because he or she subscribes to socialist thought does not make that government socialist. The Nazis (National Socialists) were NOT socialists, they were fascists (minus the religious overtones), yet they called themselves socialists.
This is EXACTLY what I was saying the problem was with your post. Socialism IS NOT these things your are reporting. If you understood socialism by reading true socialist thought, rather then by studying governments which have labeled themselves incorrectly as socialist because it gained popular support, then you would understand the difference. You weren't born under iron-fisted socialism, because there is no such thing as iron-fisted socialism, but you may very well have been born under a dictatorship that falsely called itself socialist because it was a grassroots label, and therefore popular. Hell, they may even have employed pseudo-socialistic programs to disguise their tyranny.
What I'm saying is this: socialism is not inherently evil. If one wants to learn what socialism is, one should read Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Zinn, or de Cleyre. However, most people's education of socialism comes from the known failed "socialist" societies like East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Vietnam, China, etc. Of course, people who understand socialism also understand that these societies were CLEARLY horrible dictatorships posing as communist countries. Also, people who understand socialism understand that communism IS NOT socialism, nor is Marxism, or any other bullshit econo-socio construct that gets lumped together with socialism, which is an entirely separate school of thought.
If I call myself a Christian and kill millions of people in the name of god, does that mean Christianity is evil, or does it mean I'm a whack job who doesn't represent Christianity? This is the same issue we have currently against Muslims in America. A group of extremist fuckheads call themselves Muslims and take actions completely actions the ideology of Islam and masses of Americans label Islam as a terrorist religion. I am in no way saying that you don't have the right to abhor socialism, or to value another school of thought. You certainly do, and you certainly should have your opinion. My problem is that your opinion is (at least ostensibly) based on complete fallacy, and you are spreading that fallacy. You experienced and/or learned about things that terrible people did while waving a socialist (or more likely communist) flag and you label socialism as the evil. If you understood socialism, you would understand that those societies could not have been further from socialism.
are you saying that embargoes are socialistic? i may have misunderstood what you said, but if not, please try to not further the already piss-poor education that most of us have regarding socialism. while embargoes (or even walls a la Berlin) may have played a large historical part in societies which called themselves socialist, communist, marxist, or otherwise, it certainly does not mean that embargoes and the likes are inherent or even remotely related to socialism. it happens far too often where someone takes an element of a society or government that labeled itself as one of the aforementioned groups, and uses that element metonymously with socialism. regurgitating misconception effects miseducation. of course, if i misunderstood your post, please disregard the previous.
not sure there is any inherent normality/abnormality to either one, or whether that matters. the point is more that if the parent is browsing pornography, playing WoW, looking at lolcats or any other internet meme to the point of it becoming an obstacle for the child, it is a problem. in other words:
looking at porn != bad
looking at porn so often that your child not only notices but competes with porn for attention = bad.
also, i can't shell into your car from my car and drive it around. or can i? muahahahaha
how does that get marked "funny". it's a complete troll, and the irony is that it's a complaint about not posting anything worth a damn, yet it itself is not worth a damn. so, i acknowledge that this post is equally worthless, and should, therefore, not be awarded any honors, but i feel that its content is necessary, as it points out the travesty of the previous post.
thanks for contributing to the tired-joke-of-the-year club -- Do you not see the irony in this statement?
because offering free shipping is seen as a way of issuing a larger discount through subterfuge. if the cost of the book is, for example, 10, then the maximum discount would be 0,50 euros, so the cheapest they can sell the book for is 9,50. with, say, 2 for shipping, the cheapest cost-to-customer should be 11,50. by removing shipping, the cost-to-customer becomes 9,50, which is less than the pseudo-establish minimum price. yes, by definition, you're correct in believing the shipping price is irrelevant, but i think what france is saying (excuse the metonymy) is that it believes that amazon is circumventing the regulation by offering alternative discounts. i could be wrong, but i would assume there is something implicit here about fair competition. i believe they limit the discount to avoid price dumping, which creates unfair competition for smaller businesses; offering free shipping may be seen as price dumping, in cases where explicit price dumping is banned through legislation.
whoa whoa whoa, 80 million years? how's that possible, when we all know that the world was created around 4,000 B.C.
though our system technically contains more than two parties, it is effectively a two-party system, and has had outcomes in only those two parties (or their historical equivalents) for the last 200+ years. similarly, when we talk about other parties gaining support, it's generally in very low numbers. due to campaign financing, primaries, partisanship, etc, it's nearly impossible for an outside party to stand a chance.
they could turn it into a richard simmons workout if you just had to do the drum solo from Iron Butterfly's Inna Godda Da Vida
for the real "keith moon feel", you just have to get sloppy drunk and pass out mid-song. for a more authentic touch, someone from the audience should take over for you. the john bonham mod comes with an optional spanking fish.