I like how he devolved verbs from "interact" to "hooks up" to "jumping".

Coxswains are typically chosen for size more so than anything else. I recall the crew team at my school went through a few because they kept crashing into bridges and damaging the none-too-cheap carbon fibre boats.

edit: Oh, also coxswaining (awesome verb, that) is apparently extremely difficult. Basically, all my knowledge of crew comes from a friend of mine who rowed and did pretty much nothing but bitch about the coxswain.

It's a clever rationalization of hypocrisy. If it's going to be taboo to observe patterns in groups of people demarcated by visible characteristics they were born with, be consistent about it. But I'd argue against that taboo.

What makes racism bad is treating people as specimens of a group rather than unique individuals. Group averages may differ slightly but there's tons of overlap. Common usage of the word "racism" unfortunately conflates a moral aspect (how to treat people) with an epistemological aspect (dogma that all groups are created exactly equal in every way). Epistemology shouldn't be moralized. I could give you lots of examples of sociological and psychological research getting muddled on account of an inflexible dogma that there couldn't be any heritable differences between groups other than the obvious superficial ones. I'd rather conceive of the word racism as a verb describing harmful actions towards people due to their group membership, not a noun denoting a thoughtcrime or speechcrime. Like church and state, or science and religion, epistemology and morality don't go together.

A priori based on generation times and mutation rates you should expect there could be 1/10 as much variation between historically isolated groups of humans as there is between breeds of dogs, since the most recent common ancestor of all domestic dogs is half as far back as humans' most recent common ancestor is (or rather was before 16th and 17th century explorers spread their sperm across the globe) but dogs breed a lot faster. Breeds of dogs demonstrably vary in many behavioral and psychological traits. It's not far fetched to suppose that a variety of environments over the past 100,000 years of humanity pushed population means of behavioral traits in various directions.

re·tard
verb
verb: retard; 3rd person present: retards; past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded; gerund or present participle: retarding
riˈtärd/

1.
delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.
"his progress was retarded by his limp"
synonyms: delay, slow down, slow up, hold back, hold up, set back, postpone, put back, detain, decelerate; More


I have said before and before and before, you never learn. you are in a state of arrested development.

Again, this is all my opinion, which you so fantastically love to shit all over.

So take your hormonal cry baby attitude and quit nit picking at shit you obviously have no grasp on.

* return

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!**

@Velocity5
i think i understand our difference.
you use the term as a descriptive noun.
i use artist as a verb.
it is a way of being,not a mere title of occupation.

yet both usages are correct.

In this instance, the correct verb to use is "deduce," not deduct.

One last thing,
I've been thinking about other word pairings that are very similar in phonetic pronunciation, spelling, and meaning. I came up with a few, but, for an example, consider the following:

Think about the difference between the words "sit" and "set"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sit
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/set

I can set something on a table.
Or
I can sit something on a table.

But!

If I were to say
"I sit my cactus on the table."
It sounds awkward, less natural compared to:
"I set my cactus on the table."
I assume this is because "sitting" usually refers to a person or other conscious something.

I can say
"I set my son on the table."
OR
"I sit my son on the table."
and have them be allllllllllllmost interchangeable.

Still, the difference remains. The subtle difference in meaning requires that the words differ, expanding and exacting our communication.

If Jinx really meant to say that there was a pool of human saliva that the comments were drowning in, he should have used a verb phrase in his comment like this:
"the comments are already drowning in a sea of dribbling"

Hmm... we could both have to hand in our pedant cards after this.

The important part of the definition for this discussion is, as a noun, an act or instance of dribbling. The verb means to allow saliva to trickle from the mouth, and the synonyms are:

drool, drivel, slaver, slobber, drip, spit, saliva.

If you say someone had dribble on their face, or had dribbled on their face, you don't need to qualify it with saliva as the meaning is already implied.

You know, it's not too late to ninja-edit both our comments and pretend none of this ever happened...

Is cute now a verb? Like photoshop?

You're pretty spot on, Schlager refers to it being a hit. It's the german equivalent to country, which explains rather nicely why it's crap.
Don't know why the big G thinks schlag should be shock while it is the noun to the verb schlagen (to beat), it is only ever used as shock in the meaning of electric shock.

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Those buildings are almost 50 feet apart; that is not narrow man not by ANY sense of the word.

You know why those photos look dark? Someone is using a flash!

The trees? You mean the trees with no leaves? Cmon dude!

Before I thought you were just using hyperbole but now I can see you are clinging to this idea so desperately because you just want to believe it. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. That's the beauty of living in a free society!

Unfortunately I'm still keeping my cookies

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/textarticle_640/2013/06/13/sanford_florida_police_dept..jpg

http://www.craigboyce.com/w/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trayvon-Martin_George-Zimmerman_Crime-Scene-Photos_038.jpg

You can't even SEE the other buildings and that has to be at least 20 feet right there end to end.

narrow  
Use Narrow in a sentence
nar·row [nar-oh] Show IPA adjective, nar·row·er, nar·row·est, verb, noun
adjective
1.
of little breadth or width; not broad or wide; not as wide as usual or expected: a narrow path.
2.
limited in extent or space; affording little room: narrow quarters.

Revenge Synonyms;
noun. vengeance - retaliation - retribution - reprisal
verb. avenge - retaliate - wreak - requite - pay back

Your "arguments" revolve around semantics, and glib statements.These, my friend, are not an arguments at all. I have defended my position, whereas you have nothing to offer in serious defense of yours. At best your "views" are fluffy, idealistic nonsense, which only reflect how you think justice would be best served. Get into the real world. You could start by asking the victims of serious crime whether they are happy that the criminal who killed a loved one will be allowed back into society. Get some coherent, rational, factual information about peoples views on crime and punishment, and then try and debate. In the mean time, stop wasting my time with any more puerile comments (you can use your dictionary to look up puerile).