Right, that is what I was trying to point out which you made much more clear

Watching the video, I don't understand how BP "owned" the oil. As far as I understand the government owns all coastal waters and BP just leases it. I think the way property and mineral rights work in the US need some slight refinement. I think it is dumb that a person can own something they do not yet have control over. Just because of the fact that you own some land, I don't think that should give you claim over things that you haven't yet cultivated from it. If we adjusted ownership claims sightly, it could give more powers to the people whom actually do the mining/making. It would place more power back into the hands of the people that do things instead of the people who buy things. I have the same kind of thoughts on intellectual property. You can't own ideas, you can only own what you do with them. In the same fashion, you can't just own the ground, you own what you do (on/in/with/from/more verbs) it. I think this slight adjustment could do great things, though I still need to work through all the logical implications (one day).

For me, that is one of the largest roles of government, defining private property. It isn't something that is an objective truth. The way that mineral rights, and intellectual rights are configured right now are horrible. They encourage large concentration of power for people who no longer produce goods, just buy ideas/property.

Though, I don't find fault with people get lots of money for something they do well, I love newegg and amazon, and have no problem with the people living the good life. I think we all find a problem with people that don't really do anything but game the system and somehow squeeze money from it without providing any real benefit, hell, even BP makes something we all need desperately. Day traders, property flippers, and the like I see as people who are found glitches in the system they are exploiting, and while there will always be such things I still think they could be mended with more clearly defining some of the base elements. The fact that BP owns the oil just due to the fact they have enough money to lease land and make more money seems off. It is like renting someone to make the money for you that you already bought.

>> ^mgittle:

You guys should argue in e-prime so you stop speaking in absolutes every other sentence. It would be a cool exercise.


In my opinion, I believe it is generally clear - at least to myself and possibly to others - that the points we are attempting to make here are [in my own personal opinion (which may or may not reflect the opinion of others)] completely subjective, despite the use of what some (you perhaps) might call aggressive and inflexible verbs. Still, the use of more passive language might, generally, in my own opinion, lighten the general tone of the general interaction generally in general.

Better?

Good point. Point taken.

Lie is to recline. Lay is to put or place, and the verb is always followed by an object.

I have thought for a long time that our planet/species is too primitive/barbaric to be accepted by the ranking members of the universe. I should write a book about it.

I know the video is an oversimplification, of everything, but anyway, to play the game I would change the main analogy a bit. From farming people to farming minds. Actually the farming term is narrow and loaded. Manipulating belief systems sums it up. Working with an ideological framework that the public is cued to have to herd them in the right direction. The more simplistic the cue (and reasoning) the better, as it is easier to change the cue later. Like a war on a verb or action like terrorism. But this all depends on the belief in the authority that is framing these situations. If you believe in the authority framing the situation (dichotomies are the most simplistic and usual way to frame something), then you'll follow their cues...through one hoop then the next..etc. And I'm a drunken rambling creature and I think I'll stop typing.

Fuck yeah #1 for sure and I say that despite my immense loathing toward D&B, Dubstep in particular. Funny story, I randomly met a girl who was into drum and bass and on our first date we went to this dnb gig but the music was so unbearable I phantomed* off into the night which pretty much ended things.

*Phantom (fan′təm) verb To abandon your compainons without their knowledge

In the absence of an idiomatic or metaphorical interpretation of a word or phrase that makes sense in the circumstances all we are left with is the literal interpretation. Your two definitions of "hold down" make no sense when applied to defending a fort against attackers while to hold the fort is a common long time usage and not one that just happens to be in the dictionary. Remember in the movie "The Longest Day" the British paratroopers were ordered to "hold until relieved". "Hold down until relieved" would have made no sense. >> ^CircleMaker:

Still, David's objection to 'hold down the fort' is based on a literal interpretation of the verb 'to hold down.' All I was saying is that 'hold the fort' becomes equally silly when interpreted that way. I have nothing against the verb itself. We go back a long way, 'to hold' and I.
Furthermore, 'to hold down' also has many meanings, including...
hold down
a.to restrain; check: Hold down that noise!
b.to continue to hold and manage well: She held down that job for years.
Just because something is in the the dictionary doesn't mean it makes literal sense, as David was implying it should.
>> ^nanrod:
Fortunately, the verb to hold makes perfect sense. Unfortunately your knowledge of English appears to be limited. "To hold" has many meanings, one of them being " to retain forcibly, as against an adversary".
>> ^CircleMaker:
Unfortunately, the verb 'to hold' makes just as little sense as 'to hold down' in referring to keeping a fort stable in somebody's absence. If David has a problem with the notion of hover-forts, he ought to be troubled by the implications on the width of said fort which are manifest in any usage of 'to hold' taken literally.

>> ^kurtdh:
The second thing that annoys me is how they use hospital as a verb. So instead of saying "we're going to the hospital", they say "we're going to hospital."


Not using as a verb. They use it as a title or name. Like "We're going to London." They remove "a" from a lot more nouns than just 'ospital too.

The could and couldn't care less has bothered me for years. I agree with him completely. However, it's kind of ironic having a Brit correct us on grammar. From time to time I'll listen to the BBC on my local NPR affiliate. You want to know the two most annoying things I hear? Brits putting "r"'s on the end of words ending in "a". For example, every time they say "Africa" it ends up sounding like "Africar or Africur". Drives me up the wall. The second thing that annoys me is how they use hospital as a verb. So instead of saying "we're going to the hospital", they say "we're going to hospital."

>> ^nanrod:

Fortunately, the verb to hold makes perfect sense. Unfortunately your knowledge of English appears to be limited. "To hold" has many meanings, one of them being " to retain forcibly, as against an adversary".
>> ^CircleMaker:
Unfortunately, the verb 'to hold' makes just as little sense as 'to hold down' in referring to keeping a fort stable in somebody's absence. If David has a problem with the notion of hover-forts, he ought to be troubled by the implications on the width of said fort which are manifest in any usage of 'to hold' taken literally.



Exactly. That counter-argument is mentos.

Still, David's objection to 'hold down the fort' is based on a literal interpretation of the verb 'to hold down.' All I was saying is that 'hold the fort' becomes equally silly when interpreted that way. I have nothing against the verb itself. We go back a long way, 'to hold' and I.

Furthermore, 'to hold down' also has many meanings, including...

hold down
a.to restrain; check: Hold down that noise!
b.to continue to hold and manage well: She held down that job for years.

Just because something is in the the dictionary doesn't mean it makes literal sense, as David was implying it should.
>> ^nanrod:

Fortunately, the verb to hold makes perfect sense. Unfortunately your knowledge of English appears to be limited. "To hold" has many meanings, one of them being " to retain forcibly, as against an adversary".
>> ^CircleMaker:
Unfortunately, the verb 'to hold' makes just as little sense as 'to hold down' in referring to keeping a fort stable in somebody's absence. If David has a problem with the notion of hover-forts, he ought to be troubled by the implications on the width of said fort which are manifest in any usage of 'to hold' taken literally.

Fortunately, the verb to hold makes perfect sense. Unfortunately your knowledge of English appears to be limited. "To hold" has many meanings, one of them being " to retain forcibly, as against an adversary".

>> ^CircleMaker:

Unfortunately, the verb 'to hold' makes just as little sense as 'to hold down' in referring to keeping a fort stable in somebody's absence. If David has a problem with the notion of hover-forts, he ought to be troubled by the implications on the width of said fort which are manifest in any usage of 'to hold' taken literally.

Unfortunately, the verb 'to hold' makes just as little sense as 'to hold down' in referring to keeping a fort stable in somebody's absence. If David has a problem with the notion of hover-forts, he ought to be troubled by the implications on the width of said fort which are manifest in any usage of 'to hold' taken literally.

reminds me of Knytt.

But i thought it was just a music video using 16-bit graphics and lucasarts-style action verbs for fun. I don't see much gameplay here, but it might work. Knytt sure does, despite being very slow and quiet.

What are you, like nine? Ridicule is a verb, that's what I'm 'gonna do'. A light form of it is what I'm doing to you now, Einstein.

Thanks for this very long response! I think this was my favorite line: Take away everything someone has to live for, and he'll find a cause to die for.

I will remember that line, because I think you are absolutely right.



Thanks.

In reply to this comment by kagenin:
>> ^Avokineok:
I live in The Netherlands. Everytime I'm on Videosift, I get a sense of how bad it must be to be an American.
I see some great entertaiment with all the late night shows, but I feel bad for all of you who have to live in a country that has so many people taking everything said at Fox "News" ("Gossip" might be more appropriate) so seriously..
It seriously makes me said and makes me believe Amerika is not the land of opportunities; it's a land where people with a lot of money tell other people what think.


Who do you think were those first pilgrims from Europe were? Puritans - People who wanted nothing more than to lecture others on the poor choices they made. (If you've ever been to a good Renaissance Faire, they're the street actors wearing almost all black, and almost always carrying their bibles with them. Hang around one long enough and you'll want to tell them to go take a long walk off a short pier too, if they're in good character. That's basically how they made everyone else living at the time feel. Look at modern day puritanicals such as Pat Robertson.) The ones who colonized America had enough money to sail half-way around the world, which isn't terribly cheap.

Paying for the sins of our forefathers is something every culture does. Just look at television and video games. Here in the States, you can put some pretty violent imagery on TV and maybe even some drug use in your video games, but holy hell if you show a nipple, or touch on ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Releasing a game in the three major English speaking markets (US, UK, and AU) means subjecting your content to three different review boards, with differing notions about what is good and decent for the consumers of their country. Sex, violence, drug use - the disparity between opinions on what is acceptable for only adults to see, even among countries with common language, can mean what get's a Teen rating by the US's ESRB can get an "Adult Only" in the UK, and even be banned outright unless edited for an Australian market.

Despite all this, I remain hopeful because of the fact that those like ol' Noun-Verb-9/11 Rudy are in the minority. The fact that he's so focused on using terms like "Islamic terrorist," or "islamist" displays a blunt ignorance, and could be interpreted as flat out racism. Let's remember that he put the NYC Emergency Command Center, setup after a failed World Trade Center fertilizer bombing in the 90's, was picked by Rudy to be put in the World Trade Center, a place that had recently been the target of a terrorist attack (by attackers who were brought to justice within the same judicial system that handles our parking tickets - we didn't need the post-9/11 military tribunals then, and we don't really need them now, despite certain anti-American Right-Wingers who lack requisite faith in the system they serve). It's like he refuses to learn from history or something, and unfortunately it's not an uncommon condition among modern conservative talking heads here in the states.

The fact that our president didn't use words like "islamist" or "islamic terrorist" or any permutation thereof is because he understands that the greater threat to our nation is a foreign policy that takes away everything from poor young brown-skinned people living in the cradle of civilization and gives them nowhere to turn to but bombed out countries, crumbling infrastructure, and eager suicide bomber recruiters. Take away everything someone has to live for, and he'll find a cause to die for. Dealing with the symptoms is one thing. End the root cause, and then you have the potential for peace.

Take the issue with rampant piracy around the waters of Somalia. Sure, everyone's talking about the latest tanker to be overtaken, but how many stories have delved into the root cause? The polluted waters that have killed off all the fish in the region? The fish who fed the people on the land? The fish that drove the local economy? All dead. The Indonesian Tsunami caused a tidal wave of wretched filth to wash up ashore, tainting the land and water supplies, causing pestilential illnesses. If you're a poor Somali 20-something with your family boat, and you can't make an honest living with it, what are you going to do? Grab some weapons, recruit a crew of close friends in the same situation you're in, and take your chances on the shipping lanes within striking distance... yeah, that would seem like something someone EXTREMELY desperate would do. It's happening right now. The Somali Government can't do jack, they can barely govern an area the size of my rural hometown. Sure we can bust out the snipers when someone important gets kidnapped, and we can applaud the heroes who put their lives on the life to ensure the safety of others. But that won't stop the next motley crew of fishermen with nowhere else to turn but terrorizing the high seas.

I've only spent about 4 days total in the Netherlands. What I saw was beautiful. Amsterdam was breathtaking, both figuratively and literally - man, those canals can really wreak in the summer . I hope to visit again soon. Didn't get to check out much of the television, but what brief moments I was allowed rest in front of a TV on that trip was pretty cool. A lot of stuff just wouldn't get past the FCC here without some serious fines being levied for sexual content, and that's a damn shame...

But, like I said, I'm still hopeful. Wow, that was long If you made it this far, thanks for reading.