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"

Ahh but don't you see? Even in the poem you quoted, what's more likely the meaning of that line?

"The weather-stains for the dribble"

Is it
"The weather-stains for the saliva"

Or?
"The weather-stains for the slow trickle"

Does the author intend to mean the weather that day is made of saliva or simply water?

I understand the difference is subtle, but that's the reason for a DIFFERENT word.

Keep in mind that Jinx described his own meaning as human saliva.

The Iranian leadership and the overwhelming majority of all Iranians would be offended and upset at being called a democracy, even the moderates. They are proud of being an Islamic theocracy and the Iranian constitution since the revolution and overthrow of the Shaw has been that way.

The supreme leader doesn't go around with a heavy hand visibly running everything because he's smart enough to play the more subtle role he does. Picking and choosing who gets to lead this or that is the game. If you remember back a couple of years to the last Iranian elections you saw several of the would be candidates arrested or jailed. You saw their followers arrested, jailed and intimidated. The elections were still held though none the less. Iranian politics are way more complicated than all that, but it's a start.

Same goes for statham and batman. I hate to be the Simon Cowell of this version of america's got talent, but he really did not get the subtle characteristics of any of them. Not bad, worth watching, probably has a career in voice work, but not in mimicry.

Just an educated guess but I suspect it's a tiny correction for wind drift which has been exaggerated by the camera angle.

The effects I think your referring to are called the "Coriolis" effect and "Gyro drift" and while they would have a similar effect this is seems like far too short of a range for them to come into play even at the relatively low velocity of that shell. That said its possible that with such a big round like that sabot "gyro drift" and maybe some sort of torque effect from leaving the barrel might be at work...

Gyro drift is due to the fact that the spinning bullet/shell starts to be pulled out of line by gravity causing the originally stable oscillation to slowly get knocked out of whack dragging the nose of the round out of line causing the round to pull slightly towards the direction it's spinning (though with a stable modern round this is very very subtle and only really comes into play at at least 1-2mile plus ranges).

The Coriolis effect is due to the fact that the earth itself is spinning. Over very long ranges the earth itself moves relative to the path of the round and so for 1-2mile plus shots one may need to compensate depending on the velocity and ballistic properties of the round. (this is why snipers tend to operate as a team because the maths and reference material necessary to account for all this plus standard bullet drop, variable wind conditions, atmospherics etc. etc. as well as maintaining situational awareness is a big ask for one person.)

Like I said though it seems unlikely they would have such a pronounced effect at such a relatively short range, the camera angle is definitely exaggerating what ever is going on there.


EDIT: I just watched it again, pretty sure it's just the camera angle (camera is slightly off to the left) I think the shell looks like it's actually travelling dead straight.

I disagree 100%, this was one of the BEST product placements ever in a video game! You're just not getting the subtle humor. To me, it was very obvious. First, take note of the fact that they were inarguably wanting to make this game feel a bit like a television series. This is made most evident by the way they ended and began each episode (not to mention the fact that they called them "episodes" to begin with), but also by the cinematics in battle, the independent camera controls that let you see what was behind Wake as he was running forward, the narration, the fact that all the manuscripts had to appear on screen with the author's voice reading it aloud- erm, I think I made my point there.

So what would a television series do, naturally, at a moment like this? Why, GO TO A COMMERCIAL BREAK, OF COURSE! That's why this TV was in the break room. Commercials? Break room? You get it now?

However, I wouldn't even agree that this did any noteworthy damage to the tension. Because, arguably, the most "scary" part was over. At this point, all you had to do was get by that chandelier ball thingy and you're outside with Barry Wheeler, comic relief! I thought it was brilliant.

Do I detect a subtle commentary on the ill effects of fast food on the human body in this video?

I also cried, because I loved that show as a little kid when it aired in my country, watching it together with my siblings as we had an amazing adventure along with the characters of the show every single episode. The reason I'm crying now, however, is because:

Unlike the original series, this sequel is produced entirely in France; as a co-joint venture between the French television channel TF1, the Belgian channel La Trois, the French animation company Blue Spirit and Jean Chalopin's company Movie-Plus Group.
The first of the new seasons sees the series move to China. The design of the characters are more or less the same, although some subtle changes have been made to their physical appearances. Jean Chalopin and Bernard Deyries act as creative consultants on the new series, with Chalopin concentrating particularly on the scripts (which are written by Hadrian Soulez-Lariviere from Chalopin's own draft for the sequel) and Deyries focusing particularly on the graphical aspects. New background music is composed by Noam Kaniel.

It's not the same animation, it's not the same writers, it's not the same setting, it's not the same voice actors and it's not the same memorable music. Nothing's the same. It's the same feeling as with the Star Wars prequels if you can believe it, only with less source material. Maybe our children will enjoy this show without having the nostalgic baggage of "The Mysterious Cities of Gold" series; but for me as a fan of what must be 25 years or more, this just looks unwatchable.
Not everything good is made better by making more of it, and especially after a 30 year period of the series being over and done with. I think that the window of opportunity has passed on making another season of this show by a couple of decades, I think the season they're making looks inferior both in content and quality and I think the people who made the series work so well aren't being emulated, making this creation something akin to a stranger wearing a face mask of the show, something which is copying the names but is completely set apart from "The Mysterious Cities of Gold", with no legs of its own to stand on but only a cheap imitation crutch.

You are quite welcome to take whatever you want super seriously, but don't impose that seriousness on anyone else.

There's a difference between wanting to do thing right and wanting other people to do things right.

What this video suggests and what the responses to me also suggest, is "this is the correct way and no one should eat it differently or they're idiots!" instead of "this way makes it a whole lot better and is what the chefs and locals recommend". There's a slight difference between the two - one is a helpful suggestion guiding you to a better experience, the other is being a dick.

There's also a subtle difference in people wanting to do thing right for themselves, and people who want to have other people know that they know the correct way of doing it. This is what I so subtly referred to as hipster earlier - they don't do it because it's necessarily better, but because sushi is so vogue right now, and all those other slobs just eat it in the most hilarious manner; just look at those wage collectors - now let me get back to my chai mocca, lined with the finest honey, the container of which I happen to have standing on my desk at the coffee place where I'm writing my novel on a 2007 Macbook..

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by pumkinandstorm.

Sorry looks like a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Snoop-Dogg-isnt-Very-Subtle

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

How about...Before you ask a question with an obvious answer...

Place photographs of Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese side by side, male and female representatives of each, respectively. The differences are not that subtle.

Do the same with pics of Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian peoples, you'll get really good at it after a few hours of practice.

Here's a better opener, RedSky-

"My god, you're intoxicatingly beautiful...Where are you from?!"

If that causes the needle on your PC-Meter to fluctuate in the slightest, you may want to smash that meter against the inside of your skull until it no longer operates....

oh shit....I failed to capitalize "God" while quoting scripture(Gen:1:1)..Apologies to shinnyblurry, it was intentional laziness and a subtle jab at a surety encountered daily here in Bible-central, Texas.

And No, I am unconvinced that "God" as referenced in the verse above refers to "Jesus."

Personally (American, btw), I find a lot of things that technically may be the same phonetically, I nonetheless pronounce slightly differently depending on the spelling. For instance, the 'f' sound in, say, philanthropic, I pronounce slightly differently. It's not something I could put into writing really, but when spelled with a "ph" I hold that sound slightly longer, it's a little breathier, and don't press my teeth against my lip so much or so abruptly, as I would were it spelled with an 'f.' A linguist would probably have a better vocabulary to describe this, but it's also the same for 'c' when it makes an 's' sound. There are many other examples as well. Another, off the top of my head is "can't." Were it spelled with an 'k', the 'a' sound would be more abrupt than when I pronounce it's proper spelling. "Ake" I would pronounce slightly differencly from "ache". It's subtle, but the 'ch' sound does make it in there.

Maybe this is just me, and all things being equal, I would prefer simplified spellings, but I nevertheless pronounce things with a subtle difference depending on how they're spelled.