Hey, you said it, not me.
I’m not here to argue that English spelling makes sense or is consistent. Of course it isn’t, and anyone familiar with the history of its development can tell you why.
My point it that AFAIK, the average human brain is completely capable of dealing with English spelling even if it is weird. As I said earlier, if that were not the case we would expect the reading levels of native speakers of languages with fully phonetic spellings to leapfrog over the levels achieved by the populace of English-speaking countries. To the best of my knowledge this is not the case.
I do like that gool ol’ Detho seems to have come back all feisty and recalcitrant. Gonna make the inevitable banning that much quicker. Not quick enough, but still, can’t have everything.
Well, that excludes the subject of this thread.
You drive through the drive-thru
Sometimes off the NY Thruway.
Pro tip: telling other people what they are and how they identify rarely goes well.
You’re telling DrDeez not to strawman. Want to wager he takes your advice? That’s at least 75% of his content.
And of course German troops crossed the French border before either nation declared war.
On the morning of August 2, 1914, about 30 hours before the “official” declaration of war, a German cavalry patrol made up of 8 men led by Lieutenant Albert Mayer crossed into France around 6 AM a few miles east of Courtelevant, which was then the French/German border.* Patrols like this one were tasked with finding enemy positions, scouting terrain, and noting anything else that the invaders would find useful. Previously, the French government had pulled their army farther back into France away from the German border so as to avoid any accidental engagements between over-eager or skittish soldiers on either side. This in turn compelled the German patrols to travel farther into France to glean information about troop placements and defenses. Mayer’s patrol followed what is today the D463 road toward Joncherey, which was approximately 8 miles (13 km) from Germany. And it was there that Mayer and his men ran into a small squad of French soldiers led by Corporal Peugeot.
France mobilized before Germany invaded and declared war - but their mobilization involved pulling back from the border, while Germany’s mobilization involved invading Belgium. As far as I can tell, France did not declare war until after the German attack.
But a book he read says otherwise, so everyone else is wrong. 
No, no:
The idea that France and Russia are at fault for starting WWI because they merely mobilized preemptively (correctly deducing that Germany was angling for a fight), and so Germany had no choice but to not only declare war, but violate Belgian neutrality to more swiftly invade France, is kind of like when a perpetrator of domestic violence says to their victim, “Look what you made me do!”
Hoo boy, you really want people to remember that you said that?
Worry not, DrDeez has had it pointed out to him repeatedly that German mobilization meant war since it required depositing troops on the Belgian border and immediately violating its neutrality by marching across it. There was no option for mobilizing and not going to war in German plans, unlike French and Russian plans, for which mobilization didn’t involve an immediate attack, it only involved mobilization. Or that the German ultimatum to France was entirely pro forma since it required France to demobilize, hand over its arms and allow Germany to occupy the country with the promise that they’d leave once they were done beating up the Russians. Or that the German declaration of war on Russia handed over to the Russians forgot to remove the parts that demonstrated that it was going to declare war on Russia regardless of their actual response, whether their justification was going to be not getting a response in time or deciding the response wasn’t sufficient enough.
World War I, The German Declaration of War on Russia (byu.edu)
The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea. In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany. The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with [not having considered it necessary to answer]* this demand, and having shown by this refusal [this attitude]* that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows: –
His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.
*The words in brackets occur in the original.
He’s a moron. He’s impervious to facts. He’s a blight on this board to anything relating to history, the military, or military history amongst a great many other topics. It’s best to just ignore his responses once he goes into broken record mode repeating his endlessly debunked nonsensical horseshit, since he’s going to act like it didn’t happen and keep repeating himself, in all his idiocy, inaccuracy and falsehood. It’s like his repeatedly bringing up T-34s at Khalkhin Gol, imagining it’s his one great shining example of pwning me. Except he was the one who brought up T-34s and Khalkhin Gol, not me. Because I already knew there were no T-34s at Khalkhin Gol. There were, however, over 1,000 Russian tanks in the Far East against a theoretical total of 73 Japanese tanks. With shit for logistical support, any real tank doctrine, or a concept of combined arms. To say nothing about overwhelming Russian artillery superiority.
But no, DrDeez is certain that Zhukov was the only reason Russia won at Khalkhin Gol. He basis his deep knowledge of military history on his years playing Axis&Allies, a boardgame by Milton Bradley for ages 12 and up. I wish I was making that up. I’m not.
Two books, based upon recent evidence.
Yes, which is why I gave a cite from a review about those books
Becuase, of course, he took it out of context-"Something we can all check to see if the quote is out of context.". Because frankly I dont trust Mr Dibble, he is a lying sack of anarchist shit. Like here, it’s clear he likes to take things out of context to twist their meaning, exactly as he did here.
Nope. Every one of those warmongering imperialist colonial states. All of them- They collectively started the war. That’s what Sleepwalkers makes clear. They all share guilt. Yes, Russia and France mobilized and declared first- that’s important to know since Tuchman was fooled by France into thinking Germany went first. But every one of them were itching for war, wanting war and looking for an excuse. France, Germany, AH, Russia, even GB. But no one nation has more fault than any others. They were all imperialistic warmongering powers. No excuse for Germany, but do note- King Leopold and the Belgian Congo. No ones hands were clean.
They declared first.
Of course there weren’t. There were just crappy paper mache tanks. On both sides. Which you clearly didn’t know. Because you were ignorant. And of course, when I showed you were wrong, you go crying to the pit like a pathetic loser coward.
Yeah, wargames - like every single nation used in both World wars. I never said I based my knowledge on A&A, you were telling us wargames are silly, stupid and useless, and deriding anyone who uses them. I guess you forgot about “College vs College played on a super computer” and all the rest.
Oh and
Russia-498–550 tanks. That’s half of “over 1000”. You just love Soviet Russia and are willing to lie to make them look good.
I think you’re mistaken as to who said it.
The context is right there in the top right corner of the quote box. Not that your addition changes what you said one whit.
Mutual.
Ha ha, You seem to think I care what an obviously deluded person thinks of my anarchism?
The meaning you were going for is that citing a book isn’t as good as citing some website that references the book. Which is just straight-up stupid. And betrays a complete lack of understanding of how academia works, and cites work, and where the greatest level of trust in sources should be placed.
Otherwise you land up with this idiocy:
I know you, motherfucker - you’re the living embodiment of every lazy or stupid student who reads the abstract and thinks that means he read the paper. It shows whenever you post on anything factual.
And that same raw intellectual deficiency is your constant downfall - it’s what leads to your other idiocy like thinking reading a Wikipedia cite about a place makes you more knowledgeable about it than the people who live there or thinking meeting Gygax at a con once means you knew him.
Like I said, I’m absolutely delighted at the combative attitude you’re showing, though. Do keep it up! I’m sure everyone is super-keen in seeing how your latest bout of time off did absolutely jack-shit to curb your asshole nature. Very keen indeed.
Wow. I had not read that thread. I knew pretty much exactly where it was filmed, I think any Cape Townian with even a slight interest in nature would be able to work it out.
It’s a marketing gimmick created by fast food places, a neologism if you will. Now, sometimes such words gain legitimacy and become accepted parts of the English language. An example is the word “lite”; first seen in the early 1960s as an adjective for diet products, over the decades it infiltrated into common speech and writing until it became a word on its own. You’ll now find it in pretty much every dictionary. And it has a definition separate from “light” (though still related), the word that it was developed from.
You will see “thru” mentioned as an “informal” or “nonstandard” spelling of “through” when found in a dictionary. (Which is a polite way of saying that some people use it, but it’s wrong.) It has a long way to go before it becomes a real word.
Interestingly, when I had a similar exchange with him, he chose to simply acknowledge my superior first-hand experience and thank me for my contribution, and then he basically shut up for the rest of the thread. It was probably helpful that, despite clearly having googled up some facts so he could shove them up his ass and talk out of it (likely choosing something small and obscure where he expected google-fu to reign supreme), his statement was still vaguely in the vicinity of being accurate. In other words, this was a case where his recently-searched regurgitation just had to be adjusted and refined, rather than outright corrected, so it probably didn’t get his hackles up the same way.
Of course, it’s additionally possible that there’s some sort of difference between you and me that caused him to defer more respectfully to my direct local knowledge. I wonder what that could be.
Well, you’re not an anarchist, are you ? He seems to really hate anarchists with a passion, down to stalking them and bring up their anarchism in unrelated conversations. I suspect an anarchist genocided his father.
Ain’t that what the dictionaries used to say about color, flavor, theater, and defense?
(I write only half in jest.)