Where'd that flash originate from?

(What do you mean "where'd" isn't proper grammar, firefox?!!?!?)

Oop's, I went to turn up the volume and hit the upvote by accident.
I'm not sure I wanted to upvote. this guy throws in way too much unnecessary language. Take out all the "colourful metaphors" and there's nothing left here - he can't even speak using proper grammar - didn't find the act very funny either - but he has lots of energy

Proper grammar is overrated.

that was fucking awesome!
you made me sound coherent and i LOVED how you filled in those pesky blanks where i am thinking and clacking but then my brain skips too far ahead.
thats it!
i am going to have to go back and relearn proper grammar and sentnce structure.
you want fudge?
walnuts maybe?

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^shuac:
Fixed that for you.
Everybody RUN!!! It's the grammar police.


Proper grammar is important. Two examples:

1) Proper punctuation saves lives:
"Let's eat grandpa!"
"Let's eat, grandpa!"

2) Proper capitalization is the difference between:
"I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse" and
"I had to help my uncle jack off a horse".

See

the majority are always easily duped morons, and they inhabit all camps....morons I mean-Chomsky is a practical, intelligent academic with no real voice...people with practical solutions to absolute fascist bullshit usually are.

People are predictable. Make sentences with enough proper grammar and rhetoric, tinged with the right amount of truth, non-truth, and meaningless bullshit, and you got yer self a crowd-pleasing, mob-quelling, best-selling, lauded by ineffectual pompous useful idiots chunk of ass-gravy that anyone can stomach.

Noam is the bomb-how do I know??...He's still breathing air and has tenure.

if your (sic) going to make a lecturing video it helps too (sic) use proper grammar if we are to take you seriously.

Sweeping generalizations help too

>> ^MINK:
yeah, i was joking.
"improving" language means allowing it to evolve.
the "proper english" that grammar nazis defend is a snapshot in history. I don't know why they choose 1922 as the year to take their snapshot, but they seem to agree on it for some reason.
the joke is that the english they are defending is the result of hundreds of years of "mistakes", particularly in the era before writing, printing, or state education.
if you love english, you love mistakes. If you wanna be a grammar nazi, try learning lithuanian, you won't be the first linguist to admire its out-of-date mediaeval (medieval? mediæval?) standardised amish rigidity. The lithuanian word for computer screen literally translates as "viewgiver". Nobody uses it, they just lithuanicise "monitor" because "viewgiver" sounds so retarded.



The funny thing is is that what may be improper grammar, now may be proper grammar in 50 years; but that still means it's improper now. Who knows how these things are truly decided: consensus, what goes in the dictionary, what people say on TV? Even if language is evolving, it's still more than worth knowing correct grammar- if only for the sake of intelligibility (and the sanity of grammar Nazis).

I don't think he's right.

Grammatically? Yes he's correct.

But for me personally I use the is is just like any other word.

"Sometimes.....sometimes I just really wanna kill stupid people ya know?"
"The problem is....is that people don't have enough money.

It's a pause for me really, for dramatics, not because I think it's proper grammar.

Oh btw Upvote for someone not screaming or taunting everyone in the world about how stupid they are. I've seen enough videos where people freak out over little shit, nice to see someone chill about it.

I want to attend home-college. >> ^Payback:
Homeschooling for a reasons other than religious, and curriculum?
-The knowledge that teaching is a tenured career and once achieved, a teacher cannot be forced from their job with a hand grenade.
-They stop caring as much after years of abuse from kids, parents, and teaching the same damn thing over and over again.
-Get burnt out on a daily basis from overcrowded classrooms.
-Worry about how the recession is fucking up their Teacher's Retirement Savings Fund instead of how little Timmy isn't using proper grammar, and how little David posts on video rating websites instead of working...


Presumably, all of these problems would be far worse with non-professional homeschool teachers. Being a parent-teacher is pretty much ultimate tenure, unless you plan to call child protective services every time Timmy fails a test; and I'd also imagine burnout and distraction are much harder for a homeschool teacher to manage than a seasoned professional.

Homeschooling for a reasons other than religious, and curriculum?

-The knowledge that teaching is a tenured career and once achieved, a teacher cannot be forced from their job with a hand grenade.
-They stop caring as much after years of abuse from kids, parents, and teaching the same damn thing over and over again.
-Get burnt out on a daily basis from overcrowded classrooms.
-Worry about how the recession is fucking up their Teacher's Retirement Savings Fund instead of how little Timmy isn't using proper grammar, and how little David posts on video rating websites instead of working...

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

The crux of the anti-gun argument is based on the faulty premise that if you remove certain weapons from stupid people that they will not be able to (A) obtain them illegally anyway or (B) harm others in different ways. Your intention is to prevent intentional and accidental death. A noble intent, but the road to hell is paved by such intentions.

This paragraph illustrates how you are confused and thus mis-framing the anti-gun argument to make your argument appear strong. First you imply that the anti-gun arguments intention is to wholly prevent intentional homicide; this is quite clearly wrong - noone would argue such a thing. Then you go on to admit that the real intention of the anti-gun argument is in regards to accidental death, although you again misrepresent the argument by using the word "prevent", instead of "reduce".

So at this point you seem to basically be admitting that you've got your original argument all confused, so you introduce a new argument:

In the end your solution is to strip away human liberty and dangerous powers to government and history has proven they cannot be trusted. The price is too high.

Now this is argument requires a completely different response, and I admit is more complex, but I suggest that it needs to be presented with proper grammar before it can be destroyed.



Following your logic, the government should ban anything that causes 14,000+ intentional or accidental deaths a year. That means we ban alcohol, tobacco, motor vehicles, prescriptions drugs, and ladders because too many 'stupid people' are dying from them. Yeah, that's right. Ban the ground and gravity too because more people die from FALLING every year than from guns.

All of those things you mention (cars, drugs, ladders etc) have utilitarian benefits that in most cases could be said to outweigh the deaths they cause. Guns have few uses that don't involve killing people (or animals), therefore it is being stated that the benefits of guns do not outweigh the cons.

The anti-gun argument's main problem is that it has arbitrarily decided guns are 'too dangerous' while ignoring other things that represent far greater actual dangers.

On the contrary, people who argue against guns often argue against a whole lot of other dangerous things. You are creating fantasy opponents to argue against.


A gun is a tool like any other. It is an inanimate object that must be wielded. Guns can be used recreationally. They can be filled with various kinds of rounds for non-lethal purposes.

Putting your argument in bold doesn't make it strong. The gun is designed with the primary purpose of killing. Other tools do not have this primary purpose (and are therefore much less effective). Therefore they are not the same.

JoeBiden generator doesn't work, like Joe.....Obama is having a wax and his balls shaved, and could not be reached for proper grammar-

This just in, Republican whip Timmy Tonsils passes cum back and forth with Dem.Senator Ben Cardin, Marylands own, greased hog from Delaware......
Motherfucking inane shit the TV has folks think, and do, and say, and deem important or newsworthy, eh????........