Out of ideas for a quid pro quo?

While you're right about the coke/soda point it was really tongue in cheek poke at you.

What I've been describing in some detail are eggcorns which I believe "intensive purposes" falls under.

Oh wow you really seem to know a lot about language. Maybe you can help me with something. I need to refer to a sweetened carbonated beverage but I dont know what to call it. All I have to go by is this map: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/popvssodamap.gif

Can you help me? Which is correct? Pop? Soft Drink? Soda? Coke?

orrr, is it determined by region and time? as i suggested before?

lol... screw you

Edit:
100% correct with that "intensive purposes" and "could of" bullshit.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
We passed seven billion people on Earth last month!

I don't think the comparison between those two phrases is a correct analogy. As I said before 'intents and purposes' and 'intensive purposes' are individual phrases with individual meanings. 'Could of' can't be used correctly because the 'Be' verb isn't being used at all and, again, there is a breakdown of communication as a result.

On a side note, you seem angry in this post. Chilllll we're just talking.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
It's "right" if you've misheard the correct phrase at some point in your life and are a moron who doesn't parse what he's listening to.

Yes now kids will grow up hearing it wrong, and so from their POV it will be right. That doesn't change the fact that saying "intensive purposes" is EXACTLY the same thing as saying "could of." It makes one seem like a fucking thoughtless moron who is not a good listener and doesn't read.

So by all means, be my guest, and use your fucked up phrasing for "all intensive purposes".

It's "right" if the words represent the idea you actually mean to communicate to both parties. It may not be the original phrase but that doesn't really matter in terms of the evolution of a language.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Jigga, that comment really irks me. "Intensive purposes" is just not right. Feel free to use it though, if you want to sound like an illiterate moron.

Lately I'm utterly horrified by the large percentage of people on Facebook who seem to think you pluralize words with a fucking apostrophe. It seriously has turned me off like five girls I've had a long-standing hard-on for.

shut up dickburger

In reply to this comment by budzos:
I'd like to say something about how Jigga's ass is too tight but he'd probably start a goddamn thread about that. Jigga, nobody is asking you to be the language police. Step down.

EDIT: And as for the issue at hand.. I think it's in poor taste, but fair play.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Wasn't it you whom I challenged to a race to 100 stars after reaching 50 stars? If not, sorry dude, thought it was you.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Race for what?

In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Hey dude. Is our race still on? We're on the home stretch, better pick it up

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Unhobbled

I tried. I guess it is bureaucratic.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Can you un-hobble me or is there some bureaucratic process I have to wait for?

What I actually said on the post was "Isn't the 'sucking dicks' comment playing off of a negative connotation of homosexuals?" and I said it to illustrate why someone would be offended. I just wanted to have a talk about possibly restructuring the rules, that and I felt like i was sticking up for a fellow sifter. QM takes a lot of abuse around here and I get tired of it sometimes. He's a conservative voice that the sift is rather lacking in.

That being said, I'm sorry for the hobble, it wasn't my intention. I felt like what happened to Westy was unfair and, again, the ultimate goal was a coversation about restructuring the rules a bit. You're absolutley right, there is nothing int he FAQ that qualifies you for a hobble.

Feel free to beat me with a hose when this is all over. -jj

In reply to this comment

You're right. I jumped the gun on that one. I'll post in the thread about that, too.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
On second thought, after actually looking at the FAQ, I think this is bullshit.

Q 30 (Hobbling)
"unstable members have a meltdown and use their star powers to inflict damage to the site as well as the whole community. In order to cope with this unfortunate possibility, there exists the ability to hobble (or handcuff) an abusive member before they can continue doing damage to the Sift.

Diamond members and above have the ability to instantly hobble any starred (or better) member who is blatantly misusing their abilities."

Q 32 (Comments)
* What can't I say in a comment?

We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks. It's okay to criticize ideas but refrain personal insults. Please avoid blatantly racist speech, threats, or other verbal abuse. This goes for comments in public arenas as well as private member profile comments. If a comment is bad enough it will probably be deleted due to negative feedback. "

It looks to me like I was not abusing my star priveleges to inflict damange on the site or community. I merely posted an inappropriate comment, which should have been deleted if you felt it was so inappropriate.

EXCESSIVE FORCE!

EXCESSIVE FORCE!

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
I really like you man, but that comment was out of line. Sure QM can be the biggest of douche bags, but an open insult like that was too much. Don't take the hobbling too hard, man. It's nothing personal, dude. Things just need to be done for fairness sake, you know?

budzos has been InstaHobbled by MarineGunrock for abusing the Sift.

Hey dude. Is our race still on? We're on the home stretch, better pick it up