You were biased in favor of..

1. using English 2. using 'existence' as the subject in your point. 3. using the word existence instead of other synonyms. 4. using 'is' as your verb. 5. making the point that 'existence is.' 6. explaining your point with the specific combination of words you chose to use. 7. using a period. 8. Making your sentence short. 9. using two words in your sentence. 10. making my challenge more difficult by being strategic. 11. capitalizing the first letter in the sentence. 12. not capitalizing the other letters. 13. using standard status quo western sentence structure. 14. thinking you would earn 10 powerpoints.

These were just the biases you revealed through writing. There were many many more silent biases that lie beyond detection in your noggin.

For me to prove that your sentence was biased in 10 ways, I need only to believe what I've written - and I do. For you to prove that your sentence was unbiased, you need 100% world population consensus, which I deny you.

I don't care what they say. That's not a word.
- Idiots

What it is, is a string of sounds all having their own meanings strung together like a sentence. It reminds me of medical terminology. There's a reason med terminology is not included in the dictionary, they arn't words so much as they are prefexs, suffexes, nouns, verbs and so on, which, when strung together, form a description of a body part or procedure.

So ya, this the "Chemical" name of titin, the largest known protein. It's basicly a description of the molucular breakdown (or recipee) for the chemical. This has been disputed as even being a word. It's like speaking Latin genus names.

Ah, very nice. Thanks for the insight!
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
That's because the search engine recognizes that each is a different tense of the same verb. You can also search "skater saving" and it will match.

Skater is semantically related to, but a wholly different noun than skate.


In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
But why does "saves" work? The title only contains "saved"
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^luxury_pie:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Skater-Saved-By-Backpack
Very weird: "backpack skate" reveals nothing "backpack saves" reveals the original. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0044ff">lucky760 what's up?


To our search engine, "skate" does not match "skater" and "skate" by itself is not used in the post. If you search "backpack skater" it comes up.

That's because the search engine recognizes that each is a different tense of the same verb. You can also search "skater saving" and it will match.

Skater is semantically related to, but a wholly different noun than skate.


In reply to this comment by luxury_pie:
But why does "saves" work? The title only contains "saved"
In reply to this comment by lucky760:
>> ^luxury_pie:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Skater-Saved-By-Backpack
Very weird: "backpack skate" reveals nothing "backpack saves" reveals the original. @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://lucky760.videosift.com" title="member since May 2nd, 2006" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0044ff">lucky760 what's up?


To our search engine, "skate" does not match "skater" and "skate" by itself is not used in the post. If you search "backpack skater" it comes up.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^PoweredBySoy:
lol. Pretty weak.
>> ^Chaucer:

I must have hit the nail on the head with you having no life experiences as now you are just making shit up. GG Troll.


@Chaucer is another one of those people who seems to think "troll" means "anyone who disagrees with you"
it's not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


I don't know exactly when trolling became synonymous with bridge trolls and the like, but I distinctly remember seeing various posts many years ago on Usenet urging people to "stop feeding the trolls" and thinking "that's not what troll means! Troll is a VERB! It's all about FISHING!"

Anyway, @Chaucer is one of those people whose lineage would have been wiped from the genepool if human survival were still largely dependant upon the whims of hungry lions and other predators. He's either too stupid or too stubborn to learn anything and too self-righteous to even consider any view he can't see in his mirror. I suspect he is pretty young (or a short-busser), which means he's got a long, miserable life still ahead of him if he doesn't pull his head out soon.

"The living language is like a cowpath: it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow it or depart from it according to their whims or their needs. From daily use, the path undergoes change. A cow is under no obligation to stay in the narrow path she helped make, following the contour of the land, but she often profits by staying with it and she would be handicapped if she didn't know where it was or where it led to." --E.B. White

Little known fact: many irregular verbs started out as regular ones, and over time changed to irregular. One example is "drive." It used to be drive/drived/drived. Then, in what was to become Canada and the U.S., people started saying drive/drove/driven. English who visited the colonies were so distressed at this that they raised alarms about the deterioration of the language. One included, "What's next? 'dive/dove/diven'?" At the time, "dive" was also a fully regular "~ed" verb, and in time, it too changed to "dive/dove", but not "diven". Is our language now in a fallen state?

In a population, young people, typically, are the language innovators. Almost all permanent change to language comes originally from teenagers. So now some young people are saying "text/text/text". Looking at other verbs which follow the pattern --cut/cut/cut, cost/cost/cost, put/put/put, hit/hit/hit-- it seems there's a pattern: they all end in "t". Seems like the language is continuing to evolve in the same way it always has. Whether this language innovation will stick has yet to be seen.

But language will change from the way you learned to speak it. There is no doubt about that. You can accept it, or you can get stressed, but it's happening.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

Calling someone a "Jew" for being stingy or preoccupied about money is an insult, and the song does not seem to be only about blacks (why does it begin with "skin head, dead head"?) but I won't argue about it because a)it's possible that it simply is racist and b)I don't care about MJ that much.

>> ^messenger:

For the "Kick me kike me" line, I might let that go as very, VERY poor writing if that were all there was, but it's not.
First, this is a song about unfair treatment of blacks specifically, not minorities in general.
How can you suggest that "Jew" is a bad word/calling someone names? That's the normal word, not a racist epithet. So the argument doesn't fly.
Here's another way to read it: to "Jew" someone (as a verb, as in the song) commonly means to use money/the legal system to cheat/screw someone over. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jew) The full line: "Jew me sue me" makes it clear this was his intent. Evil lawyers are stereotypically Jews ("Shysters"), so this fits too well.
I'm sticking with my racist verdict.>> ^hpqp:
@rex84 and @messenger
I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

For the "Kick me kike me" line, I might let that go as very, VERY poor writing if that were all there was, but it's not.

First, this is a song about unfair treatment of blacks specifically, not minorities in general.

How can you suggest that "Jew" is a bad word/calling someone names? That's the normal word, not a racist epithet. So the argument doesn't fly.

Here's another way to read it: to "Jew" someone (as a verb, as in the song) commonly means to use money/the legal system to cheat/screw someone over. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jew) The full line: "Jew me sue me" makes it clear this was his intent. Evil lawyers are stereotypically Jews ("Shysters"), so this fits too well.

I'm sticking with my racist verdict.>> ^hpqp:

@rex84 and @messenger
I looked up the lyrics out of curiosity, as well as the controversy surrounding them, and frankly, they do not seem discriminatory in context, au contraire. I'm no fan of MJ - as a person or a singer - but I don't like when things get labeled over misunderstandings. The lyrics (if I understand correctly) are about minorities being abused by society ("they"), including verbally, hence "Jew me" and "kike me" read as 'insult me/call me names' (I don't see how else it could be read tbh). It's very poor writing, for sure, but the intention does not seem racist. /my 2cents

@JiggaJonson

Oh, that horrible crushing balled-up stomach feeling you get when you double-down, drop that almighty trump, the Expert Card, and then you make a mistake. Ugh.

You're right: "personal effects" was correct and "personal affects" means little. Don't know where my brain was.

I can at least reclaim a mote of dignity:
I never said that it's "never used as a verb."

You didn't use those words, but you did say:
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. (and "cannot" is one word)

And that amounts to the same thing. It cannot be a verb if it's a noun, and you certainly can "effect" something.

The "comma" comment was about the comma between "others" and "effected": My personal effects and the effects of my person on others, effected other effects.

Hyphenation in English has quite a lot of variability, and there are no hard and fast (hard-and-fast?) rules governing how to write all compound words. A single compound word, even could have two different correct ways of writing it, in which case, only consistency counts. "Anal retentive" is one of the words that has no permanent form, and in fact might change from one sentence to another. For example, if it's used attributively (before the noun it modifies), you should probably hyphenate it ("I have an anal-retentive boss"), but if it's used predicatively (after a verb, modifying the subject), you might not hyphenate it ("My boss is anal retentive."), though "anally retentive" is probably a better choice there. In fact, if you're a real anal retainer about hyphenation, you can choose always to use "anally retentive" which is never hyphenated, or just "anal".

@messenger

"You said I was wrong, and "effect" is never a verb."
-
I said you were wrong, I never said that it's "never used as a verb." You've quoted most (all?) of my posts so we can be relatively certain they are not edited.
--------------------
--------------------
"you talk about "personal effects". This is meaningless."
-
You sure about that?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/personal+effects
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal%20effects
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/personal-effects/
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0501130430
For someone with English as THE major focus of their life for the past 12 years, I'm very surprised you have never heard of the phrase "personal effects."
-
*increases bullshit radar's maximum power*
So, you're telling me that the focus of your life has revolved around the English language and the phrase "personal effects" is meaningless?
*bullshit radar bursts into flames*
kay...
--------------------
--------------------
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).
-
Negative; the sentence isn't all backwards.

My personal effects (noun, see definitions' links above) and the effects of my person (noun, I did get this wrong in the original) on others affected (verb form, the definition for the noun form doesn't make sense in this context [not at all]) other effects (in this case, I suppose you could possibly use affect as a noun, but its use in the language is arguably near extinction today).
--------------------
--------------------
Also, no comma between a subject and verb.
-
What is this^ in reference to?
--------------------
--------------------
Finally, you still seem confused on which word to use. We can't have someone's life's work done poorly now can we? I recommend you practice which word to use by reading up on the subject at the Purdue Online Writing Lab: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/660/01/
-
After studying, you can test your affectiveness effectiveness (see what I did there?) at their use by trying the sample exercises provided by the same site: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/exercises/4/24/42/
-
Here are some other sources that may help you better understand your own life's work:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx
http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2005/08/effect_as_a_ver.html
http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/academics/documents/grammar_style.pdf
http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipsep99a.htm
http://prpost.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/raven-remember-affect-is-a-verb-and-effect-is-a-noun-usually/
http://imgi.uibk.ac.at/mmetgroup/MMet_imgi/tools/mayfield/affect.htm <-- the most precise and concise source I could find
--------------------
p.s.
Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it?

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.

@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.

"Effect" can be a verb: To make or bring about; to implement.
"Affect" can be a noun: (psychology) A subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus; mood, emotion, especially as demonstrated in external physical signs.

Even the image you referenced says, "Most of the time...">> ^JiggaJonson:

@messenger
Incorrect, you can not "effect" anything. Again, it's a noun. Many nouns can function as verbs, 'I feel love," with love as a noun vs "I love you," with love as a verb, but in this instance there is a spelling distinction that denotes the different forms of the word.
Through the use of a be-verb, you can use the forms of the word in the way you suggest with a little rewording. It would have to say "Except when you have an effect on an affect," to be correct. The use of the to-have verb creates a situation where the words that follow will function as nouns.
See also: http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/misspelling/effect.png