It is spelled realise or realize, not relize.
It is spelled Character, not Charachter
Sour grapes refers to an unattained desire that is rationalized by the possibly inccorect idea that they were probably sour anyhow.
NOT that somebody got something and it turned out to be not what they expected.
Delete “Microsoft” from your first sentence and your statement is accurate. One can plausibly state that Linux/MacOS/whatever are more secure than Microsoft operating systems, but one cannot plausibly state (or, as here, imply) that such operating systems are “fully secure.” Ain’t no such thing. **
And some of my own:
The first amendment only applies to government action, not to the private sector. When the mods close your thread, they are not infringing on your first amendment rights. The Chicago Reader is not the US government.
Anyone who quotes Shakespeare’s “kill all the lawyers” line as a means of denigrating the legal profession is only demonstrating his own ignorance of Shakespeare. Goddammit, read Henry VI, Part 2 before you quote it: the Bard was praising the legal profession, not criticizing it. (Explanation).
Oh, your anti-intellectual snobbery is appalling.
Who’s going to tell the mods?
Upon reflection, however, I realize that the mods believe that The Chicago Reader is, in fact, above the US government in the general heirarchy of things.
i^i = e^(-pi/2), not i. Bastards.
This is a tenuous argument at best. In three years I will have a PhD in Biology. If you don’t, and you disagree with me on a basic point of biology and refuse to accept that I probably have a scintilla more knowledge than you on the subject, you are an idiot.
It’s bedroom SUITE. It’s living room SUITE. Not SUIT.
You don’t wear furniture. Except for drawers.
Agreed.
It’s the snobbery that bothers me, not the education. otherwise, I wouldn’t be a college student m’self.
While I think higher education is a very valuable asset, it is not the be all end all of life. I do think it would be great if everyone were college grads though. My issue, as stated in another post, is with intellect snobs, not the educated mind.
No, no, no!
Okay, here it goes. We debate. I am a journalism student, but for the purposes of the argument, I will pretend I’m a high school grad (A), debating with a math PhD. (B)
A- Oh, I cannot stand The O’Reilly factor! Can we change the channel?
B- Why?
A- I once saw about 10 minutes. He was mad at a pastor. The pastor was feeding the homeless at his church, and people were complaining that they were an eyesore.
B-Well, they are.
A- Maybe, but he was saying they should be put in jail or forced into shelters.
B- I think they would be better off.
A- they aren’t guilty of a crime.
B- (Imbecile. I don’t want to be exposed to that on the street!)
Uh, how about disturbing the peace?
A-By existing? Doesn’t everyone then?
B- (Can’t you manage speak properly? Oh, that‘s right JFK high.) No, but I’m not begging for money. Besides for many, it’s their own fault they are poor.
A- are you serious? What about kids?
B-How would you know? Trust me, I have a PhD.
A- So?
B- I had classes in this.
A- Well, I’ve read…
B-(what, mad magazine? High school idiot).
That’s what I meant. The debate has to do with a current event, not math. If we both have knowledge on the subject, your PhD does not make your debate more right.
I have had this debate, just take away the HS grad and the PhD. A person who felt superior to me because the excelled at math, always, always would talk down to me. I am not stupid, I just am bad at math, with a creative mind.
And I see your point. It is not about education, it is about snobbery. I wouldn’t try to debate you on biology, and if someone tried to debate me in journalism or history, and didn’t know beans I would call them on it. See the difference?
It’s co-worker, not cow-orker.
Also constructions such as this: “All Democrats are not ." Means that none are. This usually is not what is intended. Try "Not all Democrats are.”
cow-orker originated in Scott Adams’s Dilbert strip, so it is correct if one is using the term to denigrate the cretins in the adjacent cubicle, but co-worker is the correct way to break the word, at least according to the University of Chicago Manual of Style.
And, yes, it is Scott Adams’s, NOT Scott Adams’. The apostrophe after the terminal S is used only for plural possessives; singular nouns ending in S take an apostrophe S. Strunk and White said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York.
And doth suffer a sea change/Into something rich and strange.
“Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” is not helpful advice for the less fortunate. It means a paradoxical and impossible way to exit a predicament. Try literally pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.
Yes, if used that way. If “bootstrap” is used properly, it means To promote and develop by use of one’s own initiative and work without reliance on outside help. Literally, “put your boots on for yourself.”
46. It’s the book of Revelation, not “Revelations.”
That word originated from the misunderstood quotation I mentioned.
The hell you say. My first name’s Damien. I’m a lawyer. Need you any more proof?
Sorry for the confusion, this was directed at mademoiselle, but she clarified her position.
Yes, you can, unless you want to argue that you cannot prove a positive either. Any time you prove A, you are also proving ~~A.
It was popularized by Scott Adams’s strip, but existed before that. http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/C/cow-orker.html
I think Halo would have come out with or without the Xbox, although it may have been called “Marathon IV” instead.
Are you sure the guy wasn’t trying to bypass the security on the CD that prevented it from being read on a computer?
Same as BlackKnight; very misleading, and very untrue.
You don’t say… You wouldn’t happen to represent Wal[sub]*[/sub]Mart, would you? 'cause that’d be waaaay too creepy.