1. On dictionary.com, the term mediocre contradicts itself. It first says ordinary, and not good or bad, but the 2nd definition says rather poor or inferior. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mediocre Typically, mediocre, I'd suspect would be "nothing unique, yet not poor in quality or production." 2. Sikhs are not in anyway shape or form related to Muslims, unless you include their ethnicity and nationalities. (Balbir Singh Sodhi murder) Most of the people on this board, probably know that, but I don't think average American would. 3. The Jessica Alba rule: "You can be right and wrong at the same time, but still be consider a dunce in the process." Does everyone remember when she said, "Be Sweden (Swiss) about it." Later, her critics (O'Reilly, TMZ, and few others) pointed out that she was wrong and dumb (air-head) to say such a thing. Well...she was right and wrong at the same time. She was wrong in cultural (general knowledge) sense, but not so in the sense of actual history. Alba (accidentally) mentioned the appropriate country and in sense used the term in a correct/acceptable manner. Sweden/Switzerland are historically neutral and have been for about the same number of years. Sweden, since the end of Napoleon Wars (1814, but started with the Policy of 1812), as Switzerland didn't become neutral until a year later with Congress of Vienna (1815). Also, historical figures (such as Winston Churchill and even the much maligned Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hilter) have mentioned Sweden as a "super neutral" nation. One could say the common notion of Switzerland, being the place known for "the longest reigning country of total neutrality" could be challenge with the Sweden statement (Sweden neutrality). Moreover, the country is not an official member of NATO, like Switzerland, and only participates in peace-keeping missions. The average person probably wouldn't even now Even though, she might be dumb as rocks (still hotter than Santa Fe Summer) or whatever, you can't really criticize her for the Sweden thing, since it is a very honest mistake. And, even more a mistake that could be actually be right in a sense. In other words, most competent people would know what your talking about and wouldn't think much of it. But, I can take TMZ and good ole Bill to task for not considering Sweden, to be just as long-standing neutrally as Switzerland, especially since both parties present themselves as credible sources and respected journalists (well O'Reilly does, not sure about TMZ). Furthermore, aren't their people supposed to research thing, like this and not have someone, like Alba come back and correct herself in a way. Instead, the people of the TMZ ilk act as if she said Japanese or Russian, where she was totally off the mark.
"Haters" and "bling," which should only be used in mid-'90s rap videos, not by AP journalists or rightward-leaning Vice Presidential candidates.
People often confused these religious/non-religious terms: 1. To be agnostic and atheist are two totally different things, as are theist and deist. 2. Although, people may think Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are totally opposite religions, all three have many things in common based one principle. Better examples of polar opposite religion, faith, or philosophy might be considered Tao, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even the non-faith of being agnostic or atheist. You could even supposed deist as an opposite, since it considers that an omnipotent being doesn't really meddle within the lives of mortals. 3. The way the term "cult" is used in modern day society is totally bias. Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god . . . I guess an operative word would be neutral. Atheist : one who believes that there is no deity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist People mentioned these two, like they are the same thing. When in reality, they supposed two different positions and beliefs. Deist vs. Theist: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Theist Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Ba'Hai are all related connected by some old guy named Abraham, hence the terminology, Abrahamic faiths. Yet, most people (even renowned scholars) discuss the religion as if they are polar opposites, when in reality, they are much more similar than different. This brings me to my last point about Cults and Denominations. Doesn't it have more to do with social control and politics to declare one group as a cult versus another group, which may receive denomination status. I know cults are mostly associated with fringe groups who might dabble with extremism and sometimes criminal behavior, yet can't I say the same thing about certain practices in certain denominations. Since, the actual term of cults is very simple, yet open to interpretation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult From merriam-webster.com: 1: formal religious veneration : worship2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion. C'mon, I can't pick up anything from that definition. Anyone could consider the actions of any religion last than 2,000 years old to be a cult, depending on your definition as fad. 1: formal religious veneration : worship2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator WTF.....???? Like I said open to interpretation. Those 4 things could apply to any religion. If you want to find an appropriate word for people, such as Jim Jones or David Koresh. You would have to use compound terms, like a (religious) personality movement or cult of personality movement, where actions and rituals are dictated by one person or a group of people. To what degree, do you consider one to be a cult vs. denomination or even tribe (that practices ancient ritutals). The reason I mention cult is because most (online) dictionaries are giving poor definitions for it. Again, to what degree can one be consider false, unorthodox, and even extremist. (I am aware some are more obvious than others, but who determines that) What would make the beliefs of Sunni Muslims be less valid than those of Protestant Christians, or which denominations would hold more water in the grand scheme of things, ones pertaining to Christian Science or Mormonism? Reason, I mention this, because I hear people refer to other denominations as cults, even though they are under the same faith. While, I even heard certain columnists and political writers make knocks against certain big religions as cults. In any given context, your identification of a cult could be right, just as wrong at the same time.
Fatty, I'm not letting you off the hook. You were adamant about this prior to my post. Now respond dammit!
Your two examples prove my point. In fact, they mention that educated people were the initial one's to stop using the "t." However, as more and more people started saying the "t" again, the dictionary was forced to put it back in. Much like "irregardless." The fact that some "educated" people (obviously not educated in proper english) speak incorrectly doesn't make it proper grammar, which is why I posted the link about mispronounced words a few links prior to yours.
Oh Fatty. That's why we love you. You have the ability to read over a post and make up things as you want to understand them. Pronouncing with a 'T' is the original and proper way of saying it. How can you dispute that since both quotes clearly state that. And to go further, you illustrate my point perfectly. Here is what the quote said Here is what you just said So you are right. The original and proper way of saying it was with a 'T'. The fact some some 'educated' people in the 17th century started to pronounce it without a 'T' does not make it proper grammar. Thanks for making my argument.
Huh? Just read the 50 most mispronounced words I posted. Might as well fasTen your seatbelt and sleep on your sofTened pillow. What was written was that educated people in the 18th century removed the "t" then, along with the others. The fact that educated people now say the "t" while others don't is irrelevant. They weren't educated in proper English, but their vast ignorance of grammar made it have to be placed in the dictionary. I've sadly seen "educated" people say "irregardless" too, which is why it is also now in the dictionary. It doesn't make it proper English.
Fatty, do you realize you quoted Yahoo Answers and I quoted Random House Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary? Do you realize that you said it was okay for the 'educated' people of the 18th century to change a word that had been around for 400 years prior... yet you disregard the ability of the 'educated' people now to change it back to the way it was pronounced when it was CREATED. So either the 'educated' people can't change the pronunciation at all, which means you pronounce it the way it was originally... with a 'T'. Or the 'educated' people can change the pronunciation, which means it was changed once to without but now the proper way again is to say it with a 'T'. Either way you fail.
Obviously, you don't get it. And I can't think of another way for you to get it. Dictionary does not necessarily equal proper grammar. Again, "irregardless" is the perfect example of this. Go look that up.
First of all, it has nothing to do with grammar. It's pronunciation. Secondly, if you look up 'irregardless' in a dictionary is very clearly states that the word is non-standard. Non-standard means they know that people use it and so they put it in the dictionary for the sake of documentation. But that they know it is wrong. Whereas, when you look up the word 'often'... well, I've already quoted what the dictionaries say about that. Your argument is basically a list of similar words you found on Yahoo Answers. My argument was based on two respected dictionaries (which you disregard) that state the history of the word. The word was originally said with a 'T'. Are you arguing this point?
I loathe when someone says "all over again" after ONE REPETITION. No, it's "all over" but not "all over again". If it is "all over again", that means it's the second time it repeats. Also, I hate when someone uses "so" or "or" at the end of the sentence: "We're upgrading the server right now, so..." - MOTHER EFFER, "so" what? I'm waiting for the effect of upgrading the server and why it's "so." "Uh, are we going to wait until after the upgrade, or...?" - MOTHER FREAKER, "or" what? Do you have another option? What is the other thing you were going to say? Yes, I know they're waiting for me to continue their sentence... but they shouldn't wait for me only because they're lazy.
In the 17th century, before there really was any type of "proper" language established. Enjoy saying it with a T. Just understand that it is equal to saying irregardless.
def. agree w/fatty.. i mean it just makes sense given that EVERy other word with similar structure is pronounced the other way, irregardless of the sound of the root word. Also, I find it hilarious that literally the post after Fatty calls out Vinsanity for his BS...Vinsanity pulls the "I'm better than arguing about this. time to shut up" card
I believe these 2 are fairly interchangeable.. well, interchangeable in many situations, not in some others. But the difference is only that one has only negative connotations (insinuate), while the other can be used in a positive or negative manner (imply). Other than that, I think they're the same. Not sure why this is on your list..
