There’s also that bit where “it’s on you” in no way means “it’s on YOUR show”. Should have been a hint to anyone who speaks non-pigeon-English. I thought he thought she just misheard, so he repeated.

But expecting Fox talking heads to understand plain English gives them too much credit. Edit: actually, expecting them to stop talking long enough to hear the answers to their questions is expecting too much. I think if she had listened, she would have understood.

I wish I could convince myself it was a bit, but I feel Laura isn’t that good of an actor, and her demeanor indicates she was being serious. I don’t want to think professional people are that clueless, but experience has made me believe they really are….but I freely admit it’s just my biased opinion…you of course are welcome to your own less jaded opinion, and I’ll just hope I’m wrong.

Congratulations! Your video, Physicist Brian Cox Explains Black Holes in Plain English, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 357 Badge!

Your video, Physicist Brian Cox Explains Black Holes in Plain English, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No, he, in plain English, explained why he could not do exactly that. You ignore the explanation and claim the opposite, like your illegitimate messiah.

Trump cucked you and is screwing your wife....I mean country.

The report is also in plain English, it's worth a read. It shows the Russians did things we should prevent any foreign government from doing. It also shows there is no collusion or obstruction. It would be nice if everyone could read the unredacted version but 6 dems have read it (or had access to it) and aren't claiming anything new.

If you think the Russians are the only foreign govt guilty of meddling in US elections you're a fool.

Trump's presidency? It certainly is a sham.

No surprise you can't understand plain English. Being in a cult of personality has destroyed your less than stellar brain.
You describe Trump lying under oath as him being smart to not implicate himself but don't realize that means you admit the truth is he's a criminal.

Mueller said exactly what he means, DOJ rules did not allow him to even consider criminal charges, but congress can...here's 400 pages of evidence about multiple high crimes that does not in any way exonerate the president. Congress has a duty to examine and act on that evidence. You hear that as "total exoneration, case closed".

What about the other three scandals that were exposed today? How will you excuse today's undeniable criminality, unpatriotic incivility, and his admission that his presidency is illegitimate?

One, perjury by dozens of official Trumpees about the racist census changes that prove they were designed to give "Republicans and non Hispanic whites an electoral advantage" and hurt the Democrats, and would have that effect according to studies they also hid and lied under oath about. Proof of the racist conspiracy going back to 2015 was uncovered, contradicting their testimony that the order came directly from the DOJ based on questions first raised in 2017. Gonna just wait until 10am to hear the party line in court, then whatever new lie they tell will be your answer I expect.

Two, the constantly shifting denial of the official Whitehouse orders to hide the John McCain and barring of sailors from the ship from events because the Biggest Loser throws a childish temper tantrum when he hears or reads the name. Gonna blame that on a subordinate and deny responsibility for those under him acting incredibly, offensively unpatriotic and disrespecting the military on his behalf in his name purely to stroke his ego...."with good intentions" (keeping Trump's ego unbruised), and just ignore the reason they had to do it too I expect.

Three, the accidental admission that Russia actually got him elected. That you'll call an intentional misunderstanding of a poorly worded tweet by the fake news lefty media not a Freudian slip or confession I expect.

Thanks for the opportunity to shine more light on more daily proof he's illegitimate, unfit for office, and surrounded by unscrupulous and lawless sycophants.

You keep saying that, but have never offered a single example where I misunderstood or misrepresented anything, just a mistaken accusation that I added my own term "hypersensitives" out of bias, but it was actually in the title AND the paper.
Present one. What, exactly, am I misrepresenting? Use quotes and be specific.

I think you must not understand plain English then, because that Hopkins synopsis is in plain English and contradicts your original blanket contention I took issue with-"rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats".
That might be true in some cases of patients with food hypersensitivities, the science isn't yet clear, but it is clear that your original all encompassing statement is just wrong in most if not all cases and overreaching exaggeration in the extreme as written, something which is specifically warned against in the paper itself. ( "the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals." , "These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.")
I personally know 2 long term (over 30 years) vegans in my family with active rheumatoid arthritis, and know of many more. If your statement was correct, that would be impossible.

Edit: had you said 'it appears that, in some people, RA flare ups can be caused by meat and/or dairy.' instead of "rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats" you would not have been contradicted. If you could accept that the exaggeration makes your statement unsupportable instead of defending it blindly and zealously with mistaken assumption and misplaced insult, this would have been a single post instead of a whole thread.

These aren't even cloaked ad-homs dude, and now you are talking about my mother indirectly?? What IS your problem beyond what you've already shared with the entire site-Your continued personal attacks speak tomes as well as being flagrant violations of sift-decorum.

Chinga-tu madre TRANSLATION (for anyone who does not speak Spanish): 'Fuck your mother', as opposed to 'motherfucker'

Then, as you laugh at your own clever pun, you brag about your sex-life in the most douchiest of a manner. WTF is wrong with you son? Did I indirectly tell you to fuck off??

Do you troll You Tube as well with a view to one-upping people?

Really not getting your meltdown any longer man-Please, leave the full-fledged direct attacks at myself alone sir. You are sadly mistaken if you think this is your version of what my intent is as a user here.

To the sift: This guy is sending me personal messages, posting my private messages (by copying them and rendering them public), and has promised to and is initiating a unilateral scheme of what amounts to basically spamming comments on about every post I chose to comment on.

Stalker or off-the-chain, I can't figure it nor do I want to. I do think the sift community should chime-in, I told this person I was no longer willing to engage him personally, and have been through this before in the past with other similar dysfunctionals on this site...Refuse to be a victim of the same bullshit again.

I'm harsh sometimes. I tend to lite-upon formulaic posts and diatribes. I no longer from lessons learned from past experience, directly attack personally any users nor do I wish to suffer the consequences of doing so, as I appreciate having been welcomed-back.

If this is you being yourself newtboy, it's not your best foot forward, it's a foot directed up my ass, and I am offended.

Is that plain English enough for you, because I have as strong or stronger a will to take anything you might want to add publicly?

Anybody else notice he never actually came out and answered the question in plain English.

>> ^jmd:

Asmo, Seems we both knew that there was nothing dangeriouse with using molten lead/tin on the beach, and we both gave similar every day examples of handling lead that is common place and safe. It appears however your sense of humor is..lacking.


That's why I said "Please tell me this is a bad attempt at a troll"...

It's there in plain english, surprised you missed it...

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^messenger:
I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.
Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.


I'm doing physics at a master's level right now, i understood the video because i already understood the physics, however the maths explanations were too fast and confusing for me to even relate to the maths that i already know must appear! It's only when i saw it on a huge screen of formulae that i strung it all together.

As for your sister; that's why i mentioned the text book. This is degree level stuff, and anyone understanding it either already knows it or would get far more from a textbook anyway. Tipler 6th edition for example explains this in less time (!) and better.

It's just a bad presentation, but i knew it would get 10 votes and i'm happy to see you lose your p. (to bloodscourge that is, ofc)

>> ^messenger:

I was thinking the same as you two, especially about the level, but then again, anybody who thinks they're going to understand relativity without a very strong grasp on mathematics is, well, like me, totally deluding themselves that they can ever really understand it. But still I plod on, starting with a couple hundred hours of Khan Academy videos. Hopefully there'll be some quantum physics ones up there by the time I'm through the Linear Algebra, Calculus and Physics playlists.>> ^dannym3141:
As much as i love science, i really can't appreciate this style. I watched a few bits and found that the language he used was over complicated for simple ideas, he talked very quickly over even mathematical content and in a fairly monotone style which only made it more difficult to follow, and the visuals weren't very good either because they were utterly filled with text - the whole point of visuals is to simplify.
I think anyone would get more out of even a half decent text book.

>> ^Jinx:
Yeah, this is perhaps too advanced for somebody without a very solid foundation of maths. Still nice though.


Yeah, I think you're right. Mathmatics is the language of Science. People are turned off by seeing equations with wierd triangles in them, and letters with subscript 1s and 0s when its really just shorthand for things they already understand. I think it would be possible to describe almost all the contents of this video in plain english with simple maths, but it wouldn't be nearly as concise or precise.

Basically. I watched this video because my 16yr old sister has been doing relativity in school and I thought she might find it useful. After watching for about a minute I realised she wouldn't get any of it.

There's no need for the sarcasm, it's not like the sift is flooded with explanations. I saw one before I posted this and it's a media-heavy, boring CNN bit - I think this is a nice contrast.

As for lack of understanding without pictures, etc., I think his explanation was excellent for people who don't understand and don't want to sit through monotone news productions. And if you look at some of the comments on YouTube, a lot of people agree:

"Thank you for your explanation, Hank. Even though I've been following the news on this rather closely, I am glad to have such a clear explanation. A news network needs to hire you and John to do some sort of "in plain English w/o talking down to you" segments for complicated issues like this."

>> ^BoneRemake:

WICKED ! ANOTHER Nuclear disaster explanation, what is this guy going to say different, lets watch together ! and hear something we have yet to already know

edit- I think it will be hard for a lot of people to understand what he is talking about without any pictures or video/animation. I am sure he missed that they have battery back up on some if not most plants there, tsunami wiped out the diesel generators but they had battery power, the back ups back up.

Regulations tend to favor people with expensive lobbies. Perhaps a better way to go about it is clearer definitions of properties rights more specifically, in this case, when it comes to drinking water. And access to a plain English, laymen system of court proceedings that a normal person could use and large companies couldn't use as leverage. Seems like a lot of the pollution problems could be bettered with a more defined system of property definitions. If people can extract money justice for polluters quickly, and for sizable sums, it would most likely be cheaper and faster than a regulatory body, imo.

>> ^shagen454:

It's a conspiracy!!
"Could you repeat the question (I lost my train of thought uncomfortably LYING through my teeth)?"
Grayson replies,
"WHAT DO I STUTTAH MOTHER%^&%$^?!"
So, when am I going to get my free $30,000? Or would that make me just as much of a crook as these corporate tools?


It would have been noticeably more interesting if he were to go medieval on her ass. As it was, he just repeated simple questions in plain English she should have been able to answer and she was all, "Sorry, I don't know how to word this without making me myself look crooked, so I'm going to pretend I can't understand English."