misaltas

Huck - a - bee! Huck - a - bee! Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Wooooshsh... Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Ugh. As with any conversation about Wikipedia, there's mostly miscomprehension, and typically a few who actually get it. A Wikipedia article is not a source. It contains content pulled from a collection of other sources. It doesn't allow original research or ideas. Everything written must be cited and verifiable. The quality of an article depends mostly on the quality of the sources used to create it. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Well, I caught a glimpse of the FOX News call-in poll about an hour after the debate that had McCain "winning" at 85% to 12%. So uh, heheh, there ya go... Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

For my adult life I've been a Republican. I believe Obama "won" the debate if that's really the most appropriate word. He looked at the camera a lot, had facts, points, and remained calm and confident. He zeroed in on real concerns that most Americans care about right now. He came across and knowledgeable and presidential. McCain looked crotchety, condescending, and emotional. Obama spoke to the issues, and McCain seemed to be following a playbook. Obama's brand of socialism will change this country forever, and not for the better. But for tonight, he outplayed his opponent handily. McCain better get his act together. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Say, Tennessee. US popular vote or not, there's just something not all that right with a candidate who can't win his own state. Would've made Florida moot. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

red wire or blue? I keep forgetting... Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Look at me, landing on top of the tallest mountain in Holland!! Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

When I clicked on that link, my browser's popup blocker made a 'pop' sound and it scared the shit out of me for a second. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

I agree Cosby was pandering, that is, to that audience for that time, place, and reason. Doesn't mean the message itself "is just manufactured", if by that you mean untrue. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

As recently as the 1960s, you could find oil by simply walking around the Ozarks shootin' for some food. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

There is one and only one reason why Gov Palin was selected to be VP nominee. And it's the same reason why every single other VP running-mate in recent memory has been selected. Because..she..fit..the..profile..of..the..moment. There are many variables, and she simply fit it the best to make the best ticket for winning. To watch MY PARTY (gop) scurry and stammer through ridiculous rationalizations defending and explaining the decision using every contrived reason other than the above is just silly at best. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Click-o-matic Cheers! Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

>Did the Constitution promise a geopolitical entity like D.C. representation? I'm not even sure that D.C. existed when the Constitution was ratified. No, but as for this discussion that's moot. Are the citizens of DC fully represented now? No. Are they fully taxed now? Yes. >I am not crazy about the idea of D.C. expressing a sarcastic protest using an official license plate. Sarcastic? Hardly. It's simply a point of fact. We shouldn't fear or denigrate the truth. It's the general issue plate, but one can opt out. (edited: oops, left off the part about the plate) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

It's been good for their wallets. The RR changed then stole my party away from me. The GOP used to stand for the freedom of the individual, self-reliance, the value and dignity of hard work, a smaller less interfering gov't, fiscal discipline, protection of the environment, rejection of the nanny state, power pushed away from feds and toward state/local, equal opportunity over equal outcomes, and the market's invisible hand. I see less and less of these things in today's GOP and some of the above which are flat out reversed once the RR power brokers deemed them incompatible with their agenda. I'm still waiting for anyone in the GOP to explain how exactly gay marriage threatens society and impinges on my rights without quoting a tiny piece of Leviticus (while rejecting the rest), or why gov't whims should outweigh an individual woman's right to control her own gestation. While at the same time, as long as they're getting paid, they have no problem destroying our planet (conservation? conservatism?) while paying no mind to Eisenhower's warnings about the mil-indust complex. Is this True Republican pissed? Yep. I look at today's GOP and don't recognize it anymore. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

In DC, they don't think so. (attached) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Nope, missed again. At this point you're in a debate all by yourself. There's nothing you said just there above that conflicts anything I've said. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

I couldn't agree more, on both points. If the OP had used examples described well by what you just said there, I would've agreed and not jumped in on this thread at all. Other than maybe to say, "yep, whoever said those things is not effectively using language well enough to be understood." Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Heh, heh... Spoken like a true engineer. A math formula, a micrometer, and a computing protocol can and should be perfect and work one consistent way. My view of language as a tool (and world history backs me up I believe) is more fluid and flexible than that. Even those of us who can only speak one language can perfectly understand differences within that language. I'm much more concerned with folks who's motivation is to label others as using "my way versus the wrong way", or "the way I associate with intelligent educated use" not considering that what they just heard may still be perfectly understandable. But, on the job, if there is a standard way to speak like there is a standard way to load a truck or design a network, then that's the tool for the job. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Near as I can tell, it is being taught and stressed as important. It's of course the function of schools to help prepare kids to be productive functioning members of society, and knowing standard English is still a valuable skill at the moment. Doesn't mean anything's wrong with someone who doesn't use standard English 24x7 like some of the first examples implied. That is, unless you want to see it as wrong and choose to use that as a point of personal frustration. I just threw in two cents to suggest that those who are frustrated might want to honestly examine themselves as to why. There have probably always been standard and non-standard ways of using language. One's view of concern-worthy degradation is another's acceptable dialect. Shoot, the Finns have an almost completely separate informal form of their language. Not very efficient to be good at both, but not wrong and not worth frustration if it too is a tool for effectively communicating. I have a few posts above where I'm sure I explained my opinion on the matter--using fairly standard English. (ed: changed "your" to "the" since BB wasn't the OP. my mistake.) Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Happy to oblige... Did you ever realize that much of what passes as "standard", "educated" English today grew out of non-standard uses perhaps only a century or two ago--or less. And that if educated folk from the 18th century heard us all speaking today, it would sound to them like the characters of Idiocracy sound to us? Again, my point is this: Perhaps we should use language more as a tool to communicate ideas, and less as a tool to justify one's tendency to judge and separate. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

There's a technical term for what BikerBabe just did. It's called "boiling down your meaning." I call it: returning the point to the one I made and not the one you changed it to. >IMO, people are free to use language in the best way they see fit. Is that what's happening? Sometimes yes sometimes no. Not worth anyone getting all bunged up about it. I would truly prefer it if everyone used a standard form of English and didn't...deform it and degrade it. All languages change over time, constantly and continually. Always have always will whether you prefer them to or not. IMO, people may be more calm and happy in life if they used language more as the "tool for communication" it is, and less like a "repository of rules, some of which serve little function other than to separate the classes." That would mean fewer "lower class" people would be kept out of decent jobs because they made a shitty impression on the college-educated, articulate interviewer. Right idea, wrong reason. If a part of the job (most higher paying jobs) require the candidate be competent using "standard" English, then if they want the job that's what they'll need to do when interviewing then performing the duties of that job. Has nothing to do with the impressional preference of the interviewer him/herself. I'm sure we all know plenty of people who use standard English at work, and a different register outside of work, or even a different dialect or language altogether. In that way, perhaps think of it as a work skill. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

Hmm, not what I said. Plus, I didn't call anybody anything. IMO, people are free to use language in the best way they see fit. If you care to use what you learned to be "standard English", doesn't make you an elitist. It's simply your free choice. I applied the "elitist" label to the reasons behind why some criticize the way others use the language, when they're more concerned with preserving archaic and arbitrary rules above practicality of sending an effective message to a given audience using a given medium, or when they're resistant to language change just because that's the way they learned it, or that way is the way they associate with intelligent educated use. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

>So, "degeneration will be a blessing." I disagree. So do I. Because that isn't what I said. >If simplicity is the goal, rather than specificity, you would be right. Then you're saying I'm right, because my examples described increased simplicity with no loss of specificity. a. Why is it like that? vs Why it is like that? b. Why he did that? vs Why did he do that? c. What said you? vs What did you say? d. My car run good. vs My car runs well. Zero loss of specificity. All components of the message in their proper tense and case are still there. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

It's morphing, like languages have done throughout history. Probably quicker now that media of communication are faster and have a wider reach. English has so many little ridiculous things about it that are so much simpler in some other languages. And now that it's turning into the lingua franca of business, technology, science, etc., and the second language of much of the world, it's good to see some of the changes. I'm glad that English is such an absorbent and informally adoptive language without the official "academies" of dictatorial control like some others. - "Why he did dat?" Simpler than "Why did he do that?" The voiced "th" sound is more difficult for some than the voiced "d" sound. Many languages through time have gone through consonant shifts more extensive than that. - "What you said?" As opposed to the less simple "What did you say?" In some languages it would be literally "What said you?" Much simpler. - "My car run good!" In the present tense, the third person singular is the mutant exception and mostly needs an 's' at the end of the infinitive form. All other forms don't, and "run" is correct. It would be easier and better if English ends up dropping that mutation. - "Why it's like dat?" In a statement, the subject comes before the verb, but in a question like this it's reversed. Why? Would be easier if it was the same. Almost anytime I read an article or comments about people who use the language "incorrectly", the reasons and examples are more about elitism than they are about practicality. Language should be more about best communicating ideas given a medium and an audience than it should be about holding onto arbitrary or archaic bits of right way vs wrong way. Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts