This like, guy, but not really a guy, you know, more like a monster or something, was all like 'you shall live to tell of blah blah blah' and he like killed all these people, but he totally didn't kill me, so I could be like, a witness or something. I don't know. Hi mom.
Something about a reckoning, I guess? I should have wrote it down.
About gender pronouns, here is a text you ought to read, which will show how insidious they actually are.
It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political fanatics. You know what I am talking about--those who accuse speakers of English of what they call racism. This awkward neologism, constructed by analogy with the well-established term sexism, does not sit well in the ears, if I may mix my metaphors. But let us grant that in our society there may be injustices here and there in the treatment of either race from time to time, and let us even grant these people their terms racism and racist. How valid, however, are the claims of the self-proclaimed "black libbers," or "negrists"--those who would radically change our language in order to "liberate" us poor dupes from its supposed racist bias?
Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun white and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forwhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupswhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word white, either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute person everywhere where white now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when white is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.
There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under the rubric white--no more than under the rubric person. After all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black. Used inclusively, the word white has no connotations whatsoever of race. Yet many people are hung up on this point. A prime example is Abraham Moses, one of the more vocal spokeswhites for making such a shift. For years, Niss Moses, autheroon of the well-known negrist tracts "A Handbook of Nonracist Writing" and "Words and Blacks," has had nothing better to do than go around the country making speeches advocating the downfall of "racist language" that ble objects to. But when you analyze bler objections, you find they all fall apart at the seams. Niss Moses says that words like chairwhite suggest to people--most especially impressionable young whiteys and blackeys--that all chairwhites belong to the white race. How absurd! It is quite obvious, for instance, that the chairwhite of the League of Black Voters is going to be a black, not a white. Nobody need think twice about it. As a matter of fact, the suffix white is usually not pronounced with a long `i' as in the noun white, but like `wit,' as in the terms saleswhite, freshwhite, penwhiteship, first basewhite, and so on. It's just a simple and useful component in building race-neutral words.
But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!" In fact, Niss Moses sees evidence of racism under every stone. Ble has written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the immortal and poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain Nellie Strongarm. If you will recall, whis words were: "One small step for a white, a giant step for whitekind." This noble sentiment is anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious moment in the history of White.
Another of Niss Moses's shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns whe and ble. Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as pe, tey, and others. These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are the advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such has the sentence "When the next president takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Constrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing bl/whe everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation. Shall be say blooey all the time when we simply mean whe? Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?
. . . I would merely point out to the overzealous that there are some extravagant notions about language that should be recognized for what they are: cheap attempts to let dogmatic, narrow minds enforce their views on the speakers lucky enough to have inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible language on earth, a language whose traditions run back through the centuries to such deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Walt Whitwhite, and so many others. Our language owes an incalculable debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and expression, and if the shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists succeed in destroying this precious heritage for all whites of good will, that will be, without any doubt, a truly female day in the history of Northern White. -Douglas Hofstadter in Metamagical Themas.
But he isn't really a sphere, is he? I mean, you can see his profile pic. It's a cube. A gelatinous cube. He can SAY he is a sphere, but who is he fooling?
I completely agree with Asphere. This post is to make a point, and does not reflect my views, which are that people should be free to do, say and be anything that they want, as long as it does not cause serious pain or harm to others.
Furio would shoot Vyv in the knee, then pull the stars out of his forehead with a pair of pliers, casually kicking Vyv's cricket bat out of the way, then he would pull out his phone to tell Tony how it went. While he talked, Vyv would say something in Punk, then smack Furio through the wall with the severed leg from the front of his car. Furio would then shoot him in the head. Vyv would lurch around for a while, then say 'It was bound to happen sooner or later" and lie down for a while.
When you hear advice about which course you should do to get a career that pays well, be aware that millions of other people are getting the same advice. My advice to you, is to study what you want to, without regard to the end and choose a cheap, effective venue. The skill that matters most to the employer of the future is the ability to learn new skills. You will probably find that something that gets you excited will allow you to go further, regardless of what people say about a dearth of jobs. You want to get a masters in archaeology, with a dash of geology? Go for it! When you are done, you can get work in that field, or, more likely, fall sideways into an unrelated career that opens up for you. But the years you spent doing what you love will be well-spent. My recommendation is to take a hard science, like engineering, because you can only really do hard sciences at a university, but History can be done on your own.
I am currently in my second year of a History and Classics degree at the University of London. It is a correspondence course.
There are specialised fora for this sort of inquiry. I trust you are just asking everywhere, to see what bounces back.
TLDR: Do something you love to do, then find someone to pay you to do it.
Postscript. Go to Asia if you can. The Sun is setting on the American Empire, and the Rising Dragons need you.
My son is nearly three. He is already in kindergarten, and loves it. He knows the alphabet and is starting to learn bo-po-mo-fo, can speak Mandarin and English, and is getting introduced to addition and subtraction. The kindergarten sends a different book home with him each week from their library, which is then read at home and at kindy.
They focus on art, with pottery, painting, drawing and crafts. He comes home each week with a new thing he made. He starts at eight in the morning, and leaves at seven at night.
He does 100 piece jigsaw puzzles at school and home.
Discipline is clear and firm. There are no grey areas.
He has two nap-times, and three meals.
When we pick him up, he is happy. He is happy when we drop him off.
I walk past the playground sometimes during the morning, and always see happy children playing well together.
I live in Taiwan.
They don't send kids home. They deal with them fairly, but firmly.
I think the only marriages that should be legal are the ones that are in the bible.
Between a virgin and her rapist.
Enough with this modern perversion of the Lord's will. We need to get back to the fundamentals.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Invite Monte Cook around Outback.
Alternately, hire the man.
For Savith Yi, I am using these:
And these see good use too:
Anything larger than giant should probably not be represented by a flat plane. What I think would work, would be rectangular prisms with artwork on four sides, that can fold flat, or be a box for other pawns.
A collosal, four sided box that holds other pawns.
That solves the problem of needing a gargantuan or collosal base for an A5 picture.
Octagonal prisms would work too, allowing the art to wrap on three sides.
This is a product thread. Please would the parties involved in this dispute take it to another thread, or better yet, just stop.
I eagerly await my set of minis, and am also excited for the case we ordered.
The Luge wrote:
Marry that woman.
Pixel Cube wrote:
The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.
They say marraige is an institution. So why do so many people want to spend the rest of their lives in an institution?
Regular meals and clean linen.
A glossary of nautical/naval/piratical terms.
I completely disagree.
My name is Taliesin Hoyle.
My brother is Phoenix Hoyle.
I have close friends called:
All of these names are unusual or distinctive, and we are all glad to have them.
There are swarms of Johns and Peters. There are few of us.
I use Philip Glass extensively for AP background music.
The best authentic stuff I have is from this company:
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it. The previous poster claimed that he has a gay mentor, who is precious to him, but that he cannot condone the man's sexuality? WTF? I will not post on this thread again. Just know that there are people out there who find your twisted Judeo-Christian take on human potential as perverse and twisted as you seem to hold gays to be. I have more gay friends than Christian friends. They are just far more pleasant to be around.
Wyrmling- you started playing 3.5 this year.