"that allows a telescope to photograph planets from 50,000 kilometers away"

The Grammar Nazi emailed me and said that although he understands what you were trying to say, you got it wrong.

I love when grammar nazis don't actually look up the point they're trying to make, to make sure they're right. See no. 2 under tr.v. (transitive verb).

mat 2 (măt)
n.
1. A decorative border placed around a picture to serve as a frame or provide contrast between the picture and the frame.
2. also matte
a. A dull, often rough finish, as of paint, glass, metal, or paper.
b. A special tool for producing such a surface or finish.
3. Printing See matrix.
tr.v. mat·ted, mat·ting, mats
1. To put a mat around (a picture).
2. To produce a dull finish on.
adj. also matte
Having a dull finish.

(Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

Matte is an adjective not a verb. It describes the type of black.

You have painted your bike uniformly matte black.



**CONGRATULATIONS PAYBACK! YOU HAVE ACHIEVED ASSHOLE GRAMMAR NAZI LEVEL 4!**

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar

So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer

She said how you doing
Welcome to Canning Town
I ain't got much money
And I talk real funny
Now let me in the back of your van

Now then I've had a couple of drinks
But you look a bit of alright
and I put your bands sticker on me Primark knickers
and I think that might have broken the ice

And she told me her brother was a thief
A dead cockney for knocking out coppers teeth
Her mum stayed home washing all the pots and pans
And when her old man came home he knocked her round
And she told me her mother was on meph
Her daddy used to run with the ICF
I like getting out now then to catch a breath and meet a bloke or two
And that's when she said

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave
Yeah I will call you Dave
Even though your name is Steve

She said that her last fella
He was a proper upmarket guy
Said he took her to the races
And all the nice places like Nandos and TGI

She reached for her sambuca
As I notice her tattoo
It was a love heart with Steve
It was written down her sleeve
Yeah my last bloke was called Dave too

She told me she struggled with her speech
And ducked a lot of school to go hang out on the street
She tried so hard even *spoke of therapy*
No matter what she tried said it never worked for me
She told me she never had no friends
I've made a few acquaintances by opening her legs
I think it were me we could probably go the length and have a sprog or two
And that's when she said

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave
Yeah I will call you Dave
Even though your name is Steve

She said lets go out
Lets go out to the cinema
There's a Vue in Beckton or Dagenham
And it really ain't that far
You can bring the big van
I'll bring the condoms and we can
Fuck all through the night
That's why they call me dirty Suzanne
And if I should have a baby
We'll get a council flat
Or maybe get a council house
Nah, you need three kids for that
You can take me shopping to Lakeside if we're flash
And we'll have all we need
Child Benefits and that

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault

I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar
Some say it's my stammer
But it's not not my fault
So boy where's your manners
Come buy me a slammer
And you'll get laid
And I will call you Dave I'm dirty Suzanna
I've got problems with grammar

The video title confused me initially, but apparently the band's name is "London Grammar" and the band members are named Hannah Reid, Dan Rothman and Dominic 'Dot' Major.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Grammar

I left out an apostrophe! I hate that.

And worse, you made my mistake known to the world! The shame!

I must now commit grammar-seppuku.....

Actually I'm about as English as they come but crucially I spent my advanced academic career studying Philosophy and rhetoric (lamentably only to Hons. due to laziness) and consequently have an ingrained habit of arguing around a problem rather than relying on established parameters (not always entirely helpful when discussing more day to day matters as I'm sure you've by now gathered but it is essential to working with advanced epistemological problems and so serves me well none the less). I'm also prone to poor punctuation and odd patterns of grammar when I'm not going back over everything I write with a fine tooth comb which has likely not helped. (A consequence of learning to describe tangent after tangent when trying to thoroughly encapsulate some conceptual problems with language alone)

That said, while I may have gone around the houses so to speak I think my conclusion is entirely compatible with what I now understand your own to be.

I didn't want to describe my original counter-point by simply working with the idea that weight is lower on the moon relative to the earth (though I did not try to refute this either) because that would not illustrate why a 2-300kg man in a space suit still takes some shifting (relatively speaking) even if there were no gravity at all. (Would have been faster to just crunch some numbers but that's not what I specialise in)

Sure you could move anything with any force in 0G (which I do understand is technically relative as every object in the universe with mass exerts gravitational forces proportionately (and inversely proportional to the distance between)) but the resulting velocity is directly proportional to mass vs force applied. Weight here then, can be seen as another competing force in the equation rather than the whole thing which it can be convenient to treat it as for a simple calculation (which is what I think you are doing).

To put that another way I was applying a different/deeper linguistic/descriptive paradigm to the same objective facts because that's what we philosophers do. Single paradigm approaches to any subject have a dangerous habit of making one believe one possess such a thing as truly objective facts rather than interpretations only (which are all that truly exist).


In other terms weight alone isn't the whole story (as I assume you well know). Overcoming inertia due to mass scales up all by itself, then gravity comes along and complicates matters. This is why rocket scientists measure potential thrust in DeltaV rather than Watts, Joules etc. right? The mass of the object dictates how much velocity a given input/output of energy would equal.

Gravity and thus the force in newtons it induces (weight) in these terms is an additional force which depending upon the direction in which it is acting multiplies the required DeltaV to achieve the same effect. Moreover when concerning a force of inconstant nature (such as pushing up/jumping or a brief burn of an engine) brings duration into play also. (the foundations of why rocket science gets its fearsome reputation for complexity in its calculations)


Man on the moon lies on the ground and pushes off to try and stand back up.
This push must impart enough DeltaV to his body to produce a sufficient velocity and duration to travel the 2 meters or so needed to get upright so he can then balance the downward gravitational force with his legs&back and successfully convert the chemical/kinetic energy from his arms into potential energy as weight (the energy he uses to stand up is the same energy that would drag him down again right?).

One could practically speaking reduce this to a simple calculation of weight and thrust if all one wanted was a number. Weight would be the only number we need here as it incorporates the mass in it's own calculation (weight = mass x gravity)

But where's the fun in that? My way let's one go round all the houses see how the other bits of the paradigm that support this basic isolated equation function and inter-relate.

Plus (and probably more accurately) I've been playing loads of Kerbal Space Programme lately and have ended up conditioning myself to think in terms of rocketry and thus massively overcomplicated everything here for basically my own amusement/fascination.


Basically few things are more verbose and self indulgent than a bored Philosopher, sorry .


Re: Your challenge. (And I'm just guessing here) something to do with your leg muscles not being able to deliver the energy fast/efficiently enough? (as your feet would leave the ground faster/at a lower level of force?). This is the only thing I can think of as it's easier to push away from things underwater and it certainly looks difficult to push away hard from things when people are floating in 0g.

So lower resistance from gravity = less force to push against the floor with?

Warm? Even in the Ballpark? (Regardless I'm really pleased to discover you weren't the nut I originally thought you to be! (though I imagine you now have some idea what a nut I am))


If I got any of that wrong I'd be happy for you to explain to me why and where (assuming you can keep up with my slightly mad approach to syntax in the 1st place). I'm an armchair physicist (not that I haven't studied it in my time but I'm far from PHD) I'm always happy to learn and improve.

Hmynah...
"The internet is not people....and nothing is more important than people...the internet is not people...people are more important than anything...people IS more important than everything..even grammar."
-Dan Harmon

THIS guys the shit, babies-Listen, oh ye full-of-yourself haters.

Grammar. Who needs?

Talk without

Bad for talk

Sorry, sweetie. I went to California public schools. They taught grammar in the Catholic parochial school.

Grammar Nazi urge.. grammar nazi uurrggeee.... nhngnnnnnnhnnnn.....nnnnnnrnngnnnnn *had

Round 2: Grammar Lessons With Food has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Grammar Lessons with Food has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Grammar-Lessons-with-Food

I suspect, bob, that you probably couldn't even convert 3/5 to decimal, so I hope you'll forgive me if I choose not take your advice on the 3/5ths compromise. I'm sure you didn't even know it was a compromise and not just some liberal hoax.

Yeah, if you're going to accuse someone of being dumb, you might want to check yourself first that you've got the whole basic spelling thing down.

"Your <sic> just pissed".... you sure you're not just projecting? We've seen before how your spelling and grammar get even worse than usual when you're upset.

Back to actual issues since you seem intent on bathing in distractions and logical fallacies. Yet again, I notice that you fail to even talk about the whole voter fraud issue. Once again, you seem to focus on the whole lazy aspect, just like your buddy in the video here. It seems a bigot's weakness is just to let them talk and they admit to their desires of disenfranchising citizens.

Keep it up with that GOP strategy of including people by accusing them of laziness. I see you're taking notes from Romney on that. Got any other comments on the 47% that he forgot about? I'm sure that strategy is working out for you so well in the elections.

Thanks for proving the Daily Show's point. Really saves time