1 2 3
Raised by Horses
Ooh, pedant fight! I love those!
Anyway, seems to me like we're having a classic prescriptionist
argument here. And you can argue about it until you're blue in the mouth, but ultimately, it comes down to this: Language and its use changes over time. You either like it (or at the least don't mind too much), in which case you're in the latter camp, or you don't, which would place you in the former.
4/25/2011 9:08:53 AM
@ Nori Mori
" My Apple Dictionary:
The traditional rule about whether to use a or an before a word beginning with h is that if the h is sounded, a is the correct form ( : a hospital;: a hotel). But if the accent is on the second syllable ( : historic;: habitual), there is greater likelihood that, at least in speaking, 'an habitual' will sound more natural. "
And where does the accent fall in 'hotel'? Could Apple have got that one wrong? :-)
Anyway, calm down already. I was poking fun at David Barton, not at you. The 'par contre' should have clued you in on this. Moreover, it can hardly have passed your attention that some fundamentalist types would prefer a return to 1800 and beyond.
But seriously, where I come from it is not uncommon to hear in formal situations 'an' before an 'aitch word with the stress on second or later syllable . English is not a monolith. There are many versions, some of which use older forms, like 'gotten' and dove (past of 'dive'), and 'an hotel'. And while it may may sound strange to your ear, be assured it is no stranger than some usages elsewhere are to mine. But that is language. It changes everywhere and not necessarily at the same rate or in the same way.
4/25/2011 9:38:23 AM
@NoriMori, Xotan, Raised by Horses
Thank you for a perfect demonstration as to why there are so many different religious factions.
4/25/2011 9:42:29 AM
And, funny, YOU DON'T MENTION A SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE, only the funding fathers. Wait, giving to the poor?. Not likely to work, believe me.
4/25/2011 10:08:00 AM
Clearly, this man is unfamiliar with "A Model of Christian Charity", or really anything that anyone before 1950 thought...
4/25/2011 10:08:28 AM
I read about the afterlife
I'm sorry, but weren't two people kind of smote for not sharing their spoils with the church? Isn't that kind of endorsing socialism?
4/25/2011 10:14:01 AM
> Net Neutrality sounds really good, but it is socialism on the Internet.
Look, this isn't really that difficult to grasp. E-commerce took off like a rocket in 1990s and 2000s because of a single fact: Everyone could set up a business on the cheap on the Web. Buy server space, stitch together a site, sell shit. The weak fell, the competitive and business-savvy companies thrived. Just like in brick and mortar era.
Lack of net neutrality? Your customers are walking to you on streets owned by someone else. The multinational conglomerate that owns the "street" might suddenly notice your small business, non-profit or personal site is a danger to their bottom line, and screw you over any way they can. If you have a little bit bigger business, they might say "a nice little website you have, shame if anything might happen to it".
The thing about the neutral infrastructure is that it gives the same opportunities to everybody. I hear you call that sort of concept "the American Dream" or something silly like that.
4/25/2011 10:14:46 AM
Raised by Horses wrote
I swear, most "Christians" don't know a fucking thing about Jesus Christ.
That's why most 'Christians' would more accurately be called 'Paulists'.
4/25/2011 10:47:26 AM
NoriMori` wrote of Xotan correcting someone's grammar:
Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? What is this, the 1800s? This pissses me off more than the OP.
That pissed (note, correct spelling) me off. Xotan can actually write a sentence in correct English without swearing, unlike some others here.
Spitting obscenities at people because we disagree with their views doesn't exactly make us look too clever.
4/25/2011 11:05:13 AM
The concept of the free market was more-or-less created by Adam Smith. It has nothing to do with religion, try as neocons might to marry their two loves, God and mammon (ironically in direct defiance of what Jesus said). And Net Neutrality is well, neutral. I think that being neutral is good when it comes to presenting the unbiased facts...
4/25/2011 11:05:14 AM
Technically that's correct, but that's not a sustainable free market. As you mentioned, the eventual outcome is a single company that owns everything (or at least everything within their business realm anyway). Once it reaches that point it can no longer be considered a free market as at that point nobody else has a chance and thus that eliminates competition and thus it is no longer a free market but rather an owned market. Ironically, the only way to create a sustainable free market is to regulate. Not to the point of being overbearing but to the point where competition is realistically possible.
4/25/2011 11:10:48 AM
David Barton is Glen Becks favorite historical misinformer. All his books have been debunked and condemned by actual economic experts, American historians and the moderate church leaders and Biblical scholars, nothing this Barton jerk has ever done has any validity.
So how's things working out for him being so utterly provably full of shit? Just great, Right-wing press, southern churchs, Republicans and big corporations are right behind him, financing and promoting his bullshit despite all of it being proven nonsense and straight out lies.
Why? Because they really need dumbfuck Jesusland behind them so they can own everything, destroy the free-press and bury the truth and get the those Christards on board to destroy their own lives
Why are so many people so easily conned by the repeated reappearances of known liars? Because thats all they have, get them churchs to push for dictatorship, give up everything you have because these righteous church leaders, Christ-filled Republicans and straight-shooting for Jesus Right-wing media personalities would never lead you wrong.
Look at how little public critisism W Bushs trainwreck administration got due to them claiming Godliness. Never saw anything so politically disgusting, Well except the absolute dismissal of every stupid thing Sarah Palins ever done 'cauuuuse Jesus makes her smarterest
4/25/2011 11:11:21 AM
That is part of the reason we have prosperity
That'd be the $14.6 trillion National Debt increasing at $4.06 billion a day? $46k for every family in the country?
Please spare me that sort of 'prosperity'.
4/25/2011 11:24:46 AM
Corporation: "Net Neutrality is evil, because our opinions and sale pitches are more important than your non-money generating ideas!"
People: "That doesn't sound like it's in our best interest!"
Corporation: "Uhh... I mean... uuuhhh... Jesus would hate net neutrality!"
People: "Good point!"
People: "He convinced me!"
People: "I'm sold, down with net neutrality!"
Corporation: "Damn... that was easy!"
4/25/2011 12:34:08 PM
Except it was this very 'free market mentality' that led to the destruction of the indigenous tribes, the institution of black slavery, unbridled greed, and a society that measured men by their wallets.
I seem to recall a certain parable about a rich and unkind man ending up in hell while a poor beggar went to heaven...
4/25/2011 1:09:22 PM
Allegory for Jesus
"Xotan can actually write a sentence in correct English without swearing, unlike some others here."
Because if you swear, it invalidates everything else you say. Is there a logical fallacy for that?
4/25/2011 1:49:48 PM
The concept of net neutrality makes it so that some dude in Nebraska could theoretically provide content that hauls in more revenue than a company pouring millions into their business plan. Interestingly, these champions of the free market that David Barton is proselytizing so passionately about aren't partial to the idea of having to compete on a level playing field and actually win battles with quality rather than cornering the market with blockbuster mergers and acquisitions, but go figure. Anyway, we're seeing a lot of people trying to re-frame the debate as "government control of the internet" vs. "free internet". You won't find many people worth a shit in IT who think of net neutrality this way, much like you won't find many climate scientists who don't buy anthropogenic climate change. Who needs those eggheads when we've got the GOP and major telecoms to tell us what's best though, right?
4/25/2011 1:57:28 PM
If you were such an advocate of Free Market, you would be FOR Internet Neutrality.
4/25/2011 2:34:04 PM
It appears that coherence is not David's forte.
4/25/2011 2:54:39 PM
I didn't know that Franklin, Jefferson and Washington were Biblical prophets.
Or that the Puritans were particularly concerned about free market.
Or that Net Neutrality had anything to do with either of those.
Learn something new every day, I guess.
4/25/2011 3:02:28 PM
1)the only times the "free market" comes up in the bible is when some holy figure denounces it, be it anti-usury diatribes or Jesus kicking the moneychangers out of the temple
2)conflating Franklin, Jefferson, etc. with the Pilgrims and Puritans is just fucking dumb.
3)The free market principles you're talking about were for a world in which there were no multinational corporations, corporate takeovers, and corporate monopolies. They were talking about a world of mom&pop shops. The only way we could have such a thing today would be with extremely strict government regulation, one of which would be the maintenance of Net Neutrality.
4)Adam Smith was for government-run healthcare, so neener neener
4/25/2011 3:10:51 PM
@ Raised by horses
I will not attempt to nay say you. :-) By any chance did you meet Jesus in your stable? :-)
See my posting below which pretty well says what you say about language.
@ Dr. Razark
I'm sure the thought has crossed your mind that Nori Mori and I might be debating and not squabbling, no? On second thoughts, I will not presume to speak for Nori Mori, but I, certainly, am not squabbling. That much should have been clear to you - just pointing out.
The reference to diffences of religion is not really apt. Where I now live, I need three languages on a daily basis, apart from the two with which I grew up. I manage nicely with these, thank you. But in general, religions allow only one (religion) at a time.
@ Allegory for Jesus
I appreciate your comment, but I would have to diverge slightly. A well chosen swear word in the right circumstances is, linguistically, very effective. Over-use, however, debases the coinage - I think we may agree on that. I hope so as it is past midnight here and I need some rest.
4/25/2011 3:42:43 PM
Yeah, Jesus was a dyed in the wool free market capitalist all right.
4/25/2011 4:02:43 PM
Allegory for Jesus
@Xotan- Yes, I agree. It's why I only swear less than 50% in my comments here XD
4/25/2011 4:21:15 PM
The Bible is remarkably silent on economics and politics. God was apparently only interested in what you eat and who you have sex with and how you treat your slaves and animals.
4/25/2011 4:44:25 PM
1 2 3