Is that Webster actor?

*dead like webster

I'm pretty suge he just said fug -

the stuffy atmosphere of a poorly ventilated space; also : a stuffy or malodorous emanation .
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fug


So um, nothing to see here - nothing to see - All people that work for the 7-second delay company can back about their business...

Just look at his last comment, and allow your hopes to be dashed. Ultimately he's just a birther negrophobe.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Based on BHO's performance, he doesn't deserve a second term.

I must be going mad. I could've sworn QM just made a political statement without resorting to childish name-calling or ridiculous hyperbole.
A sign of things to come? One can only hope.

>> ^scannex:

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?
2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.
3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity
4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.
5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.
7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.
Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.
>> ^hpqp:

Words



It's a fair point to call me out on making presumptions about you and linking your comments to those I've been reading elsewhere; my apologies for that.

You cannot dissociate my first 2 points above from the third: you do not go telling strangers, even in a passive-aggressive way, that they are unfit to be in the public eye. For someone so quick to see personal attacks in comments about you, you seem rather impervious to those in the letter you defend (then again, 'tis true that I'm not very subtle when pissed). The real tangent, one I should probably not have given so much weight to, is whether or not obesity is something one can show/not show and induce simply by showing it (my argument remains valid, btw, it's just not so important as to repeat it all over, and your strawmen are so obvious as to no longer require pointing out).

Your point as I understand it is twofold: the letter-writer has a right to send the anchor his personal criticism and is right to do so. I only agree with the first part; he has a right to do so ((so long) as it is not harassment/threats), but she is also right to call him out for it, and point out that such behaviour is wrong, and that it participates in a culture that tolerates bullying, by letting people think it's fine to say whatever they think to whomever without questioning whether it might be hurtful or not. And nobody's saying that something like this is as bad as WBC-style bullying or systemic racist bs, just like nobody would argue that a female politician being meowed in a session by a colleague is as bad a case of sexism/misogyny as a continually harassed or beaten wife, for example. They are, however, on a spectrum with a unifying underlying belief, namely "I can and should voice my opinions/(dis)tastes about others without taking how it affects them into consideration (and society has nothing to say about it)".

The reason I projected the whole sexism/privilege thing on your comments is because they contain the same "it's harmless/no big deal" and "just poor me self-victimisation" and "what's with making a private event/exchange public?" and "you're trampling his rights!" dismissals. It was wrong of me to do so, but at least now you can understand why I did.

Speaking of projection, presumption and personal attacks, you sure are quick to jump to (and stick to) the conclusion that the anchor is overweight because she has poor lifestyle choices (the same assumptions behind the letter), which is why I (and @bmacs27) went on the tangent of "there's-more-to-obesity-than-being-a-lazy-junkfood-gobler". The assumption that an overweight person is that way because s/he choses so is insulting and ignorant in and of itself, the same way the GOP's "poor people are that way cuz they're lazy moochers who don't pull themselves up by the bootstraps" is.

As for Chris Christie, I refer to point 1) of my comment above: public denunciation all 'round!

I hope that has clarified my argument. Otherwise, I refer you to @Thumper's comments, less contentious than mine and with which I wholly agree.

Certainly didn't take you long to resort to personal attacks. Sorry I annoy you.
Congratulations, you annoy me.
1. Your connection is ridiculous. I must somehow be privileged or sexist to have this view?

2. I guess I cannot figure out your point, since I only directly dealt with #3 in your post it sure sounded like "because she cannot turn off being fat, its nothing like smoking". Your other points are you soapboxing about how you want the world to be and are not something I am likely to convince you about.

3. She needs to binge eat in front of the camera to draw the conclusion that she overeats? I completely disagree with you that SHE is in a situation where being overweight is a necessity.
A point I will concede to: It is WILDLY more expensive to healthily than to eat garbage. Being on a local TV program however makes me think she is likely able to afford healthier choices.
3b. Please feel free to provide some hard numbers on the incidence of genetic obesity

4. I redefined behavior following you redefining behavior as essentially a state one can inhibit in the presence of others. Obesity is a behavioral problem. Feel free to use meriam webster if that link is insufficient for you.

5. I didn't ignore 1, and 2 of your post I just didn't reply to it. I don't agree with you. Period. It is tangential to our argument and while valid arguments will further take it off topic.I will say that you ascribe such heightened value to everything it makes me think you are on the brink of a nervous breakdown.

6. What do I care if what she said was not reprehensible? To be blunt, she cites this as a bullying event. It isn't. That is inaccurate. Its becoming the first warcry of those with hurt feelings. My main problem with it is that doing this has the effect of DEVALUING the term, and often when that happens people become desensitized to it. Not every statement is bullying. Not everyone who hears a negative utterance was bullied.

7. One said wasn't saying Shh. One side was privately making a statment. Voicing an opinion, however dickish. Was it his place? Nope. Was it nice? Nope. Was it his right? Yes if you live in any of the 50 states it is his right. A lot of assholes do things with words, like the westboro baptist church and gay soldiers funerals. When it reaches a point of bullying things need to be done (and in the westboro case something WAS done to stop them). That's a good thing. That differentiation between systemic hatred and one guy writing an email NEEDS to be made clear.

Last to your example of Chris Christie, people are BRUTAL to that guy. He gets his share of mail I assure you. People give him shit for the exact same reason of being int he public eye as well. The sexist/privelaged thing is just wild speculation on your part that only makes an angry situation seem angrier. That says a lot about you and your mindset, too.

>> ^hpqp:

Words

>> ^seltar:
Are you fucking kidding me, @bremnet & @Chaucer?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harp
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harp
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harp
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/harp
It's also called a harp.
Get over it, and/or fuck off!
Also, why am I defending the title of the YouTube video?



My point exactly. Can't believe you bit again, and with such passion this time. Good to be right I guess. Carry on.

Are you fucking kidding me, @bremnet & @Chaucer?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harp
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/harp
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harp
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definitions/harp

It's also called a harp.
Get over it, and/or fuck off!

Also, why am I defending the title of the YouTube video?

@messenger

"You said I was wrong, and "effect" is never a verb."
-
I said you were wrong, I never said that it's "never used as a verb." You've quoted most (all?) of my posts so we can be relatively certain they are not edited.
--------------------
--------------------
"you talk about "personal effects". This is meaningless."
-
You sure about that?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/personal+effects
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal%20effects
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/personal-effects/
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0501130430
For someone with English as THE major focus of their life for the past 12 years, I'm very surprised you have never heard of the phrase "personal effects."
-
*increases bullshit radar's maximum power*
So, you're telling me that the focus of your life has revolved around the English language and the phrase "personal effects" is meaningless?
*bullshit radar bursts into flames*
kay...
--------------------
--------------------
In your second sentence, you have all the "effect"s and "affect"s backwards. A correct sentence could be:
My personal affects (things I own) and the effects of my person on others effected (caused to happen) other affects (moods/emotions).
-
Negative; the sentence isn't all backwards.

My personal effects (noun, see definitions' links above) and the effects of my person (noun, I did get this wrong in the original) on others affected (verb form, the definition for the noun form doesn't make sense in this context [not at all]) other effects (in this case, I suppose you could possibly use affect as a noun, but its use in the language is arguably near extinction today).
--------------------
--------------------
Also, no comma between a subject and verb.
-
What is this^ in reference to?
--------------------
--------------------
Finally, you still seem confused on which word to use. We can't have someone's life's work done poorly now can we? I recommend you practice which word to use by reading up on the subject at the Purdue Online Writing Lab: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/660/01/
-
After studying, you can test your affectiveness effectiveness (see what I did there?) at their use by trying the sample exercises provided by the same site: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/exercises/4/24/42/
-
Here are some other sources that may help you better understand your own life's work:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx
http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2005/08/effect_as_a_ver.html
http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/academics/documents/grammar_style.pdf
http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipsep99a.htm
http://prpost.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/raven-remember-affect-is-a-verb-and-effect-is-a-noun-usually/
http://imgi.uibk.ac.at/mmetgroup/MMet_imgi/tools/mayfield/affect.htm <-- the most precise and concise source I could find
--------------------
p.s.
Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it?

saw that coming. these 2 hour live concerts rarely stay on youtube for very long.>> ^eric3579:

dead

It's Keen's Mustard (try a google image search on that exact phrase) after Thomas Keen, founder of the company (born in 1801, quite a while after Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia has him founding the company). See http://mccormick.com.au/keens/history/mustard-history.aspx

McCormick have bought the Australian rights to the name.
>> ^jqpublick:

Definition 1 c) is where it comes from.
Definition of KEEN - Merriam-Webster online
1 a : having a fine edge or point : sharp
b : affecting one as if by cutting <keen sarcasm>
c : pungent to the sense
But maybe Keane just exploited the coincidence, I don't know.


>> ^CrushBug:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
"Keen as mustard"
That's a new one to me.

I think there is a brand of mustard in England by the name of Keane, so that might be where the phrase comes from.

Definition 1 c) is where it comes from.

Definition of KEEN - Merriam-Webster online

1 a : having a fine edge or point : sharp
b : affecting one as if by cutting <keen sarcasm>
c : pungent to the sense

But maybe Keane just exploited the coincidence, I don't know.




>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
"Keen as mustard"
That's a new one to me.

I think there is a brand of mustard in England by the name of Keane, so that might be where the phrase comes from.

From Merriam-Webster:
3 a : a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or intense conflict of forces
>> ^brycewi19:

Umm. Hate to say it, but I would classify that more as "Action" than "Drama".
Just sayin'.


>> ^spoco2:


And I agree. That's not Drama 'We know Drama'. No you don't. If you pick a movie in the 'drama' genre you're going to get very little of what was just shown and far more deep discussions and crying and long stares into the middle distance.
Apparently "We know Action but think it's called Drama"

enzoblue nailed it, faith vs. blind faith.

Both Oxford and Websters define faith as simply strong belief or conviction, particularly in the case of belief in religious doctrines. The absence of evidence is not a requisite in the English language, it's just an abuse of our language that makes it easier to ridicule people who describe themselves as people of 'faith'.