>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^BoneRemake:
Says the guy using a contraction.


..that's not the point, the point is grammatical errors. A contraction is just dandy!
Leaving off the 'ed' is lazy and incorrect.

""I can't afford to pronounce an extra syllable because I'm a piece of human garbage"
He chose to say Can't instead of Can not, he called others lazy (and garbage). that's my point. So swallow a zucchini ya donkey.


All I've got on hand is yellow squash, would that suffice?

And @dag, yeah, tongue pictures are a thing now, so you better participate if you want to be hip and with it.

>> ^UsesProzac:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Says the guy using a contraction.


..that's not the point, the point is grammatical errors. A contraction is just dandy!
Leaving off the 'ed' is lazy and incorrect.


""I can't afford to pronounce an extra syllable because I'm a piece of human garbage"

He chose to say Can't instead of Can not, he called others lazy (and garbage). that's my point. So swallow a zucchini ya donkey.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Says the guy using a contraction.



..that's not the point, the point is grammatical errors. A contraction is just dandy!

Leaving off the 'ed' is lazy and incorrect.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.


Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?


You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.


Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You've piqued my curiosity: are you a teacher? Journalist? Scribe?
In reply to this comment by messenger:
You made a legit correction to the YouTube title, and I added a comment that the two words can sometimes be the other form. "General rule" is what you're saying now, but that's not what you said before. You said I was wrong, and "effect" is never a verb. This isn't about language changing or a difference of opinion.

FWIW, my example sentence was a little silly since "affect" isn't in the correct lexical category (an event, a result, an intention or a desire (Thanks @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp)) to be an object for the verb form of "effect", and I half expected you to call me out on that point.

But maybe we do have to go back and forth a bit because your example sentences are wrong. It's not like you can choose which one to use, but it's "better" if you choose one over the other to maintain good form. If you use "effect" as a verb or "affect" as a noun they have special meanings, different from "affect" as a verb and "effect" as a noun. In your first sentence, you talk about "personal effects". This is meaningless. "Effect an effect" is possible. 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).

Even still, the latter part of the sentence is as silly as my original one since to "effect an affect" doesn't work on the lexical level, even though it's fine grammatically.

Normally I'm not so anal about people being wrong on the internet, but you've stepped into my wheelhouse. The English language, especially grammar and writing, has been my living and the major focus of my life for 12 years and I generally don't let stuff like this slide.

Also, no comma between a subject and verb.>> ^JiggaJonson:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/messenger" title="member since August 23rd, 2006" class="profilelink">messenger that's true; what I'm speaking of is a general rule, but when you say "Except when you effect an affect," it's still being used incorrectly.
We could go back and forth about this forever since language is forever changing, but I would argue that some general rules make written communication easier and are, in turn, needed to keep the language functioning to avoid communication breakdowns in writing.
My personal effects and the effects of my person on others, effected other effects.
^confusing because it's difficult to distinguish a noun from a verb.
vs
My personal effects and the affects of my person on others, affected other effects.
^here, understanding that effect is (commonly) functioning as a noun, and affect is (commonly) functioning as a verb allows this sentence, in spite of being vague because we don't have other context, to make sense.

You made a legit correction to the YouTube title, and I added a comment that the two words can sometimes be the other form. "General rule" is what you're saying now, but that's not what you said before. You said I was wrong, and "effect" is never a verb. This isn't about language changing or a difference of opinion.

FWIW, my example sentence was a little silly since "affect" isn't in the correct lexical category (an event, a result, an intention or a desire (Thanks @hpqp)) to be an object for the verb form of "effect", and I half expected you to call me out on that point.

But maybe we do have to go back and forth a bit because your example sentences are wrong. It's not like you can choose which one to use, but it's "better" if you choose one over the other to maintain good form. If you use "effect" as a verb or "affect" as a noun they have special meanings, different from "affect" as a verb and "effect" as a noun. In your first sentence, you talk about "personal effects". This is meaningless. "Effect an effect" is possible. 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).

Even still, the latter part of the sentence is as silly as my original one since to "effect an affect" doesn't work on the lexical level, even though it's fine grammatically.

Normally I'm not so anal about people being wrong on the internet, but you've stepped into my wheelhouse. The English language, especially grammar and writing, has been my living and the major focus of my life for 12 years and I generally don't let stuff like this slide.

Also, no comma between a subject and verb.>> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger that's true; what I'm speaking of is a general rule, but when you say "Except when you effect an affect," it's still being used incorrectly.
We could go back and forth about this forever since language is forever changing, but I would argue that some general rules make written communication easier and are, in turn, needed to keep the language functioning to avoid communication breakdowns in writing.
My personal effects and the effects of my person on others, effected other effects.
^confusing because it's difficult to distinguish a noun from a verb.
vs
My personal effects and the affects of my person on others, affected other effects.
^here, understanding that effect is (commonly) functioning as a noun, and affect is (commonly) functioning as a verb allows this sentence, in spite of being vague because we don't have other context, to make sense.

>> ^Skeeve:

Nice of them to make it simple for kids... but we did not evolve from Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor to Chimpanzees. Sloppy simplification can be worse than no simplification at all - especially when the "my grandma wasn't a monkey!" people get involved.


Yeah but stupid people will always be stupid. At least this way the kids who this does spark an interest with will go on to learn the facts eventually themselves, even if it is in the way of going one day to their mate, or a teacher in class "oh, we descended from apes didn't we?" and then they are in a prime position to learn the complex truth of the matter, because they give a shit and it was already somewhat in their head.

I just like things that are entertaining and educational, I can see the use of it even if it isn't bang on scientifically correct. I can see your aggravation too, if Bob Hale oversimplified parenting or grammar (even though I'm not great grammatically I'm not a rapist and it fucks me off when I see it) I'd be straight up on my soapbox

>> ^jonny:

heh heh - fucking poon. Makes grammatical sense anyway!
>> ^Peroxide:
Either that or this guy hates poon: /po͞on/
Noun:
Any large Indo-Malayan evergreen tree of the genus Calophyllum.


Poon, short for poontang. Fucking poontang is a pastime shared by many men and lesbians.

heh heh - fucking poon. Makes grammatical sense anyway!

>> ^Peroxide:

Either that or this guy hates poon: /po͞on/
Noun:
Any large Indo-Malayan evergreen tree of the genus Calophyllum.

>> ^quantumushroom:

And what's the DEAL with that comment by DRAGEN? If one Seinfeld joke is hearing them ALL, then what's hearing TWO jokes? Infinity plus one? It's like a hamster cage filled with Grape Nuts and you're the wheel!
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Porksandwich:
Yeah Leno is annoying. The commercial needs some kind of joke to allude to the Conan/Leno fiasco......maybe we can get one in the comments.

Some kind of joke that was funny at all would be an improvement. Seinfeld's entire schtick is to say inane things in a pubescent boy squeak. If you've heard one Seinfeld joke you've heard 'em all.



Meh, that's about as lucid, well spelled, grammatically correct and intelligent as you ever get isn't it Quant?

@longde @oritteropo

I think this is a debate between the professional world and the unprofessional world.

Any career adviser would be very clear on this. Using the grammatical knowledge of a 14 year-old makes other people think less of our intelligence. Don't do it.

Note that in every comment in this thread, for example, we're using adult-level grammatical knowledge because we'd be embarrassed to be associated with simplistic mistakes. Doing it on an account that's connected in any way to our real-world identity never occurs in the professional world except among crazy people.

my style is something that has just stuck with me.
it drives overcast nuts also but i dont do it intentionally or to be disrespectful.
its just how i converse.

i write like i talk and always with the idea that person is right in front of me.
i do try to break things into parts so my comment is not one giant vertical piece of vomit.
sometimes i succeed,other times i fail but i have to admit not putting a giant tag of importance on my grammatical failings.
content is far more important.

that and im lazy.

Using paragraphs isn't difficult, it's just a matter of clustering ideas in a way that makes sense.


Take the note you just left me, should probably separated into 3 or so different parts



hey man. <<< Greeting

mucho thanks for your response and the time you spent. very awesome of ya. always appreciate when someone takes the time to clear something up. <<< Thoughts about our exchange er our conversation

and about the paragraph deal. not gonna happen. im a grammatical trainwreck. <<< Commentary on the grammar of your post.

Make sense?




Thing is, bad grammar is mostly fine in everyday conversation. In face to face situations, someone can ask you a question if they dont understand what you mean or are having a hard time keeping track. In writing, on the other hand, if someone gets lost for one reason or another, they can use a variety of internet resources and other media to make sense of what was said will stop reading.