Last week Annadel Cruz and Alexander Bernstein were released after spending AN ENTIRE MONTH in a Pennsylvania jail after being arrested for possession of co cane. The co cane in question turned out to be ordinary soap, just as Mr Bernstein claimed all along.
According to Halifaxs Regional Municipality Bylaws for Taxis and Limousines, number 42 a) stipulates drivers must wear shoes and socks, keep their attire in neat and tidy condition at all times, and absolutely cannot wear a t-shirt. Looks like summer is a whole lot hotter for cabbies in Halifax.
Souris, P.E.I. is well-known to summer visitors for its curious Singing Sands Beach, but few know of a local law that warns residents against building monstrous snowmen. If you live on a corner lot its against the law to built a snowman taller than 30-inches. Fear of Frosty's revenge, much?
Few may remember this, but thanks to lobbying by dairy farmers it was illegal to sell butter-coloured margarine in Ontario until 1995. In fact, margarine was altogether banned in Canada from 1886 to 1948 (there was a brief reprieve during WW1).
"Hong Kong" is the only place name that you can say aloud without moving your tongue or lips.
False. You still have to move your tongue to make both the "k" and the "ng" sound.
No, you don't. In the course of normal speech you would, but that doesn't mean that you have to. Try it. I have.
Yes, you do. I've tried it. It is absolutely impossible for a normally structured human mouth to actually pronounce the words "Hong" or "Kong" without moving the tongue. If you don't move your tongue, the sounds you are making are at best "Hnnnng nnnng".
To pronounce the soft "o" sound, the tongue must be separated from the palate, while the "ng" sound requires the tongue to touche the palate. How you could possibly transition your tongue from a non-palate-touching position to a palate-touching position without actually moving the tongue is beyond me. Also note that the hard K sound requires the tongue to touch and then leave the palate. Just because you don't think you're moving your tongue doesn't mean it's not moving. It is.
"Reading" and "Polish" are the only words in the English language that change pronunciation when capitalised.
"Reading" is not pronounced any differently than "reading" ... "Polish" is only pronounced differently from "polish" when it refers specifically to things from or of Poland. You can start a sentence with the word 'Polish' and be referring to metal polish.
Wrong again. Reading is a place in Berkshire in the UK. It's pronounced like Otis Redding, to rhyme with shredding. And yes, the non-proper nouns can be used at the beginning of the sentence to retain pronunciation and gain capitalisation, but that's capitalisation for a different reason.
Using place names as evidence of a generalization about word pronunciation is not even close to being facts in support of your stated (and inherently false) truism. Just because a place in England pronounces "Reading" as "Redding" does not make your statement true. On the face of it, your statement is proven false since in English as you point out yourself, you can capitalize any noun at the beginning of a sentence and the pronunciation of the word does NOT change. Your original claim that the word "reading" changes pronunciation when capitalized is 100% false. It only changes pronunciation when it is intended to be a specific place name that is inherently pronounced differently than that word is normally pronounced when read.
The length of your foot is equal to the distance between your elbow and wrist.
False. I just measured me own bits and there's a 2 inch difference.
I said your foot, not your bits.
Pics or you're lying.
By "my bits" I meant my foot and my forearm, don't know what you were interpreting that as. As for "pics or you're lying" ... same to you pal. Should I just assume everthing you post is a lie unless you post photographs to back it up? My forearm, elbow to wrist, is 11 inches long; my foot is 9 1/2 inches long. Maybe on some people their forearms and feet are the same length, I don't kow; I don't have any other people handy to measure right now. Be that as it may, you posted that statement as if it were a truism, and I have simply and easily proven it false.
All calico (or tortoiseshell - same thing) cats are female, because colouring is carried on the X chromosome, and you need two different sets of colours to display a calico pattern. The only way for a male cat to be calico is if he has a second X chromosome as well as his XY. For the same reason, most ginger cats are male (but not all), as ginger is a recessive colour, so a female would have to inherit an unmutated ginger chromosome from each parent.
I don't know, haven't researched it ... but based on your track record so far, I'd lean towards false :-D
You don't know so you'll presume I'm wrong? Take your head out your backside and Google it to discover the full extent of your wrongness.
You're one to talk about cranial-**** insertion. Yes, I presumed you generally don't know what you're talking about since everything you listed before the Calico statement has been very quickly and easily proven false. I still haven't searched the Calico thing, dont' care. You could be absolutely correct on that one item, but that doesn't make any of your other statements true.
Cats have 1 less toe on their back paws (4) compared to their front paws (5).
Most cats have 5 toes on each of their 4 feet. Their hind feet are elongated and one toe is further back on the foot than the other 4. Some cats have extra toes (polydactylism).
So you're saying that some cats have an anomaly that means they have extra toes? Well, yeah. Okay. If I said humans had 10 fingers and toes I'm sure you'd argue that SOME people have more or fewer just so I would be "wrong".
But hey, don't give up! Keep plugging! I'm sure eventually you'll say something both rudely patronising AND correct!
I'm saying that you stated several generalisms as a truisms, and those generalisms are patently false. When you say "this is that" without any comparative adjectives / adverbs to modify the statement, then you are effectively stating that "ALL this are ALWAYS that" ... that's how it works in the English language, bucko. If you don't want to be patronized (rudely or otherwise) then don't post things that are blatantly wrong.
Interesting thing: It's a commonly held belief that humans are the only 'animal' that commits murder, cannibalizes it's own species, or has wars. All of those beliefs are factually wrong. Many carnivorous species will eat another animal of the same species ... the one most commonly cited is the African lion -- males will often kill and occasionally eat lion cubs that are not their own. Chimpanzees have wars between different family groups (kinda like tribal warfare) where they in fact kill and maybe eat their own kind.
Souris, P.E.I. is well-known to summer visitors for its curious Singing Sands Beach, but few know of a local law that warns residents against building monstrous snowmen. If you live on a corner lot its against the law to built a snowman taller than 30-inches. Fear of Frosty's revenge, much?
That actually makes sense. Many places have laws about how high bushes can be on corner lots as well. It is for sight lines as you drive around a corner. You should be able to see across the corner. Same goes for the ends of driveways. You have to have a clear sight triangle.
In the early 20th century residents of Fort Bragg dumped their garbage over the cliff onto the beach below. After an extensive cleanup effort by the state of California, the beach is now clean, and the rocks along the shoreline are mixed with hundreds of thousands of glass chunks that have been made smooth by the waves over the years. It's beautiful!
"Hong Kong" is the only place name that you can say aloud without moving your tongue or lips.
False. You still have to move your tongue to make both the "k" and the "ng" sound.
No, you don't. In the course of normal speech you would, but that doesn't mean that you have to. Try it. I have.
Yes, you do. I've tried it. It is absolutely impossible for a normally structured human mouth to actually pronounce the words "Hong" or "Kong" without moving the tongue. If you don't move your tongue, the sounds you are making are at best "Hnnnng nnnng".
To pronounce the soft "o" sound, the tongue must be separated from the palate, while the "ng" sound requires the tongue to touche the palate. How you could possibly transition your tongue from a non-palate-touching position to a palate-touching position without actually moving the tongue is beyond me. Also note that the hard K sound requires the tongue to touch and then leave the palate. Just because you don't think you're moving your tongue doesn't mean it's not moving. It is.
"Reading" and "Polish" are the only words in the English language that change pronunciation when capitalised.
"Reading" is not pronounced any differently than "reading" ... "Polish" is only pronounced differently from "polish" when it refers specifically to things from or of Poland. You can start a sentence with the word 'Polish' and be referring to metal polish.
Wrong again. Reading is a place in Berkshire in the UK. It's pronounced like Otis Redding, to rhyme with shredding. And yes, the non-proper nouns can be used at the beginning of the sentence to retain pronunciation and gain capitalisation, but that's capitalisation for a different reason.
Using place names as evidence of a generalization about word pronunciation is not even close to being facts in support of your stated (and inherently false) truism. Just because a place in England pronounces "Reading" as "Redding" does not make your statement true. On the face of it, your statement is proven false since in English as you point out yourself, you can capitalize any noun at the beginning of a sentence and the pronunciation of the word does NOT change. Your original claim that the word "reading" changes pronunciation when capitalized is 100% false. It only changes pronunciation when it is intended to be a specific place name that is inherently pronounced differently than that word is normally pronounced when read.
The length of your foot is equal to the distance between your elbow and wrist.
False. I just measured me own bits and there's a 2 inch difference.
I said your foot, not your bits.
Pics or you're lying.
By "my bits" I meant my foot and my forearm, don't know what you were interpreting that as. As for "pics or you're lying" ... same to you pal. Should I just assume everthing you post is a lie unless you post photographs to back it up? My forearm, elbow to wrist, is 11 inches long; my foot is 9 1/2 inches long. Maybe on some people their forearms and feet are the same length, I don't kow; I don't have any other people handy to measure right now. Be that as it may, you posted that statement as if it were a truism, and I have simply and easily proven it false.
All calico (or tortoiseshell - same thing) cats are female, because colouring is carried on the X chromosome, and you need two different sets of colours to display a calico pattern. The only way for a male cat to be calico is if he has a second X chromosome as well as his XY. For the same reason, most ginger cats are male (but not all), as ginger is a recessive colour, so a female would have to inherit an unmutated ginger chromosome from each parent.
I don't know, haven't researched it ... but based on your track record so far, I'd lean towards false :-D
You don't know so you'll presume I'm wrong? Take your head out your backside and Google it to discover the full extent of your wrongness.
You're one to talk about cranial-**** insertion. Yes, I presumed you generally don't know what you're talking about since everything you listed before the Calico statement has been very quickly and easily proven false. I still haven't searched the Calico thing, dont' care. You could be absolutely correct on that one item, but that doesn't make any of your other statements true.
Cats have 1 less toe on their back paws (4) compared to their front paws (5).
Most cats have 5 toes on each of their 4 feet. Their hind feet are elongated and one toe is further back on the foot than the other 4. Some cats have extra toes (polydactylism).
So you're saying that some cats have an anomaly that means they have extra toes? Well, yeah. Okay. If I said humans had 10 fingers and toes I'm sure you'd argue that SOME people have more or fewer just so I would be "wrong".
But hey, don't give up! Keep plugging! I'm sure eventually you'll say something both rudely patronising AND correct!
I'm saying that you stated several generalisms as a truisms, and those generalisms are patently false. When you say "this is that" without any comparative adjectives / adverbs to modify the statement, then you are effectively stating that "ALL this are ALWAYS that" ... that's how it works in the English language, bucko. If you don't want to be patronized (rudely or otherwise) then don't post things that are blatantly wrong.
Cheers :-D
Right. These things are so "blatantly wrong" that you're having to argue in circles just to give the appearance of being right. Seems legit.
I'm certainly not your "pal", and "bucko" is definitely inappropriate. Could you try and at least insult me appropriately? Oh, wait.
Perhaps I should take a closer look at some of your "facts".
Interesting thing: It's a commonly held belief that humans are the only 'animal' that commits murder, cannibalizes it's own species, or has wars. All of those beliefs are factually wrong. Many carnivorous species will eat another animal of the same species ... the one most commonly cited is the African lion -- males will often kill and occasionally eat lion cubs that are not their own. Chimpanzees have wars between different family groups (kinda like tribal warfare) where they in fact kill and maybe eat their own kind.
That's certainly not a commonly held belief, at least, not my anyone who's got enough cognitive function to not be in a coma. It's well known that a number of different species kill and eat their young for a number of reasons. Where's your evidence for animals going to war? Wikipedia again? Well I can't be bothered to Google it so I'll just assume it's rude and patronising, since that's what all your other posts are.
Chlorine was originally called "dephlogisticated muriatic acid air" by it's discoverer. (wikipedia)
I like the word "dephlogisticated".
"Chlorine" was not in fact called "dephlogisticated muriatic acid". You mean elemental chlorine. You have to use the entire, correct terminology or else you say something different from what you mean, you know. That's how the English language works! Source: Wikipedia.
Killing zombies in the pipe is an actual technical procedure. In Unix you can man man but you can't man woman.
Oh, dear. You chose my specialist subject! This should be funny.
While "killing zombies" is a technical procedure (well, not really a "procedure" - it just means, in Unix terms, killing processes that are in a zombie state, i.e. processes that have done their job but are hanging around for some reason; a "procedure" implies a set of specific steps, whereas this is just the one command, and a whopping 7 characters long) and "pipe" is common shorthand for pipeline, i.e. a number of processes chained together, no-one refers to "killing zombies in the pipe" as a phrase. At least: I've never heard it used in all my experience as a software engineer and, just to be sure, I Googled the phrase - and lo and behold, the one and only hit is this very thread!
As for being able to man man but not woman - that's not a "fact" so much as a "joke". Of course you can't man woman - woman isn't an entry in the man(ual).
Stooping to your level has left a nasty taste in my mouth. So, if you don't mind, can we please stop this rudeness and play nice?
Apologies to everyone else reading the thread who's now incredibly bored of this debate; I intend to ignore any further rudeness. A new fact for you: when developing in utero, the first orifice to develop in a human is the *. So, at one point, we were each nothing but an a*sehole.
I've heard that! There's actually a brilliant bit of stand-up from Ben Elton about the Antarctic White Whale's mating habits - the huge apparatus, the courting bit, the way they have to jump up out of the water to actually do it because sea water is a spermicide... he's all over the stage when he's explaining it, it's really funny. Tried to find it on YouTube but it doesn't seem to be there.
Soldiers in rome were paid in salt, and salt was used as money because of its many uses and thus value. This is where we get our term for payment or "salary". Also the orgin of the expression, being worth your salt.
Replies
God Bless America
I know how to spell, the forum censors the word.
According to Halifaxs Regional Municipality Bylaws for Taxis and Limousines, number 42 a) stipulates drivers must wear shoes and socks, keep their attire in neat and tidy condition at all times, and absolutely cannot wear a t-shirt. Looks like summer is a whole lot hotter for cabbies in Halifax.
Souris, P.E.I. is well-known to summer visitors for its curious Singing Sands Beach, but few know of a local law that warns residents against building monstrous snowmen. If you live on a corner lot its against the law to built a snowman taller than 30-inches. Fear of Frosty's revenge, much?
Few may remember this, but thanks to lobbying by dairy farmers it was illegal to sell butter-coloured margarine in Ontario until 1995. In fact, margarine was altogether banned in Canada from 1886 to 1948 (there was a brief reprieve during WW1).
Source: readers digest.ca
Some of it is in E-currency like bitcoin, but the majority of the worlds money intangible long before the advent of the internet.
Works cited, I love it.
Does that mean she isn't telling us the full story.
Yes, you do. I've tried it. It is absolutely impossible for a normally structured human mouth to actually pronounce the words "Hong" or "Kong" without moving the tongue. If you don't move your tongue, the sounds you are making are at best "Hnnnng nnnng".
To pronounce the soft "o" sound, the tongue must be separated from the palate, while the "ng" sound requires the tongue to touche the palate. How you could possibly transition your tongue from a non-palate-touching position to a palate-touching position without actually moving the tongue is beyond me. Also note that the hard K sound requires the tongue to touch and then leave the palate. Just because you don't think you're moving your tongue doesn't mean it's not moving. It is.
Using place names as evidence of a generalization about word pronunciation is not even close to being facts in support of your stated (and inherently false) truism. Just because a place in England pronounces "Reading" as "Redding" does not make your statement true. On the face of it, your statement is proven false since in English as you point out yourself, you can capitalize any noun at the beginning of a sentence and the pronunciation of the word does NOT change. Your original claim that the word "reading" changes pronunciation when capitalized is 100% false. It only changes pronunciation when it is intended to be a specific place name that is inherently pronounced differently than that word is normally pronounced when read.
By "my bits" I meant my foot and my forearm, don't know what you were interpreting that as. As for "pics or you're lying" ... same to you pal. Should I just assume everthing you post is a lie unless you post photographs to back it up? My forearm, elbow to wrist, is 11 inches long; my foot is 9 1/2 inches long. Maybe on some people their forearms and feet are the same length, I don't kow; I don't have any other people handy to measure right now. Be that as it may, you posted that statement as if it were a truism, and I have simply and easily proven it false.
You're one to talk about cranial-**** insertion. Yes, I presumed you generally don't know what you're talking about since everything you listed before the Calico statement has been very quickly and easily proven false. I still haven't searched the Calico thing, dont' care. You could be absolutely correct on that one item, but that doesn't make any of your other statements true.
I'm saying that you stated several generalisms as a truisms, and those generalisms are patently false. When you say "this is that" without any comparative adjectives / adverbs to modify the statement, then you are effectively stating that "ALL this are ALWAYS that" ... that's how it works in the English language, bucko. If you don't want to be patronized (rudely or otherwise) then don't post things that are blatantly wrong.
Cheers :-D
Dammit ... I tried and failed.
Interesting thing: It's a commonly held belief that humans are the only 'animal' that commits murder, cannibalizes it's own species, or has wars. All of those beliefs are factually wrong. Many carnivorous species will eat another animal of the same species ... the one most commonly cited is the African lion -- males will often kill and occasionally eat lion cubs that are not their own. Chimpanzees have wars between different family groups (kinda like tribal warfare) where they in fact kill and maybe eat their own kind.
some links for your enjoyment:
http://blog.sunsafaris.com/2013/06/13/cannibalistic-lions-photographed-in-botswana/
I like the word "dephlogisticated".
Just means it's ingrained into me to cite my info; too many history course, and too many years drilling it into my own students, lol
That actually makes sense. Many places have laws about how high bushes can be on corner lots as well. It is for sight lines as you drive around a corner. You should be able to see across the corner. Same goes for the ends of driveways. You have to have a clear sight triangle.
Dave
It is also illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
In London it is illegal to hail a taxi if you are suffering from bubonic plague. Guess you have to take the bus to hospital.
You just want me to go and check, don't you. Well I won't.
Right. These things are so "blatantly wrong" that you're having to argue in circles just to give the appearance of being right. Seems legit.
I'm certainly not your "pal", and "bucko" is definitely inappropriate. Could you try and at least insult me appropriately? Oh, wait.
Perhaps I should take a closer look at some of your "facts".
That's certainly not a commonly held belief, at least, not my anyone who's got enough cognitive function to not be in a coma. It's well known that a number of different species kill and eat their young for a number of reasons. Where's your evidence for animals going to war? Wikipedia again? Well I can't be bothered to Google it so I'll just assume it's rude and patronising, since that's what all your other posts are.
"Chlorine" was not in fact called "dephlogisticated muriatic acid". You mean elemental chlorine. You have to use the entire, correct terminology or else you say something different from what you mean, you know. That's how the English language works! Source: Wikipedia.
Oh, dear. You chose my specialist subject! This should be funny.
While "killing zombies" is a technical procedure (well, not really a "procedure" - it just means, in Unix terms, killing processes that are in a zombie state, i.e. processes that have done their job but are hanging around for some reason; a "procedure" implies a set of specific steps, whereas this is just the one command, and a whopping 7 characters long) and "pipe" is common shorthand for pipeline, i.e. a number of processes chained together, no-one refers to "killing zombies in the pipe" as a phrase. At least: I've never heard it used in all my experience as a software engineer and, just to be sure, I Googled the phrase - and lo and behold, the one and only hit is this very thread!
As for being able to man man but not woman - that's not a "fact" so much as a "joke". Of course you can't man woman - woman isn't an entry in the man(ual).
Stooping to your level has left a nasty taste in my mouth. So, if you don't mind, can we please stop this rudeness and play nice?
Apologies to everyone else reading the thread who's now incredibly bored of this debate; I intend to ignore any further rudeness. A new fact for you: when developing in utero, the first orifice to develop in a human is the *. So, at one point, we were each nothing but an a*sehole.
Seriously, what a ****.
I've heard that! There's actually a brilliant bit of stand-up from Ben Elton about the Antarctic White Whale's mating habits - the huge apparatus, the courting bit, the way they have to jump up out of the water to actually do it because sea water is a spermicide... he's all over the stage when he's explaining it, it's really funny. Tried to find it on YouTube but it doesn't seem to be there.
All I can think about is the poor diver with that very very long tape measure. He deserves a raise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary