|
Geeman |
|
Advanced Member |
| Gxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx |
|
United States |
| Independently poor |
| Just about every incarnation of "art", several sciences, language, psychology, current eve |
| Male |
|
|
Friday, October 02, 2009 |
|
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:47:47 AM |
324
[0.82% of all post / 5.89 posts per day] |
|
Tmc wrote:what about the Gray vs Grey? which is the americanized verses the proper spelling?
I was taught that either was fine.
|
Tman wrote:...heaven awaits for those who steer clear of the evil one.
Hillary Clinton?
|
Quote:I'll walk where my own nature would be leading: It vexes me to choose another guide.
This is an interesting quote. I would, however, take issue with the suggestion that what she was saying might be interpreted as a kind of "just be yourself" sort of advice. Rather, I think she's talking about not being led or directed; that being led cancels or opposes her sense of self.
|
sandraleesmith46 wrote:And here's a mind twister that I don't have a clue about either: do we all suddenly speak the same language and share the same culture when we get to wherever it is we go, or how does THAT work??
Babelfish
|
I remember seeing a program about how colors affect people. A researcher would hold a colored poster in the face of a big, tough guy lifting weights. When looking at a pink card he was consistently unable to lift weights that he could when the card was blue. This prompted various police stations to paint a cell or two pink and use them for violent or angry prisoners. They claimed people kept in those cells calmed down faster or were less likely to be violent.
I also remember briefly a period when fire trucks were painted colors other than the traditional red. That color, it was believed, could not be as easily seen as yellow or a couple other shades. I remember some fire trucks that were this really awful shade of light green. Granted, you could see the thing pretty well... but it looked really stupid.
However, I can't help but wonder what humanity would be like if our vision were expanded a bit to either side of the spectrum. I wonder if we would be demonstrably different if we could see a few shades beyond red and violet....
|
jagh55 wrote:What's the difference between paradise and heaven? 
From what I can tell, people use the word "paradise" to describe either an earthly concept or that of the afterlife. Heaven, however, pretty much means afterlife or, at least, a world beyond this one. When someone uses that word to describe something earthly it's really a comparison.
|
|
Warning: Don't read this thread and then go to the market. I just did that and I bought more food than I need by about six cousins and two uncles. It's worse than subliminal advertising.
|
LeadPal wrote:This means is that any other universes that might exist in the multiverse are also part of the universe. Or, of course, that our definition of the universe is flawed.
I've always understood the word "universe" to mean our dimensional sphere. That is, the energy, matter and space-time continuum in which we exist. It is the unit above galaxies in our cosmology. Other, parallel (I think convergant or divergant are really better terms for this kind of thing) universes might exist as seperate entities from our own. The complex interaction of those universes would be the multiverse. Maybe you'd prefer a term I've heard once or twice: the omniverse?
Whew. You know, I really should do some stretching before I dive into a post with vocabulary like this one.... I think I strained something.
|
doubutsuMother wrote:Lets see if anyone can find examples of the following words used on the Internet. Please post links
moliminous
repertitious
Whew! I had some trouble just looking those up, let alone find them on the 'net....
Which makes me think that for this challenge to be legit, hits for these words for on-line dictionaries or vocabulary web pages shouldn't count.... The site should actually use the word in a context, not just list the word with a definition.
|
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:Just like you had my fingers in use. I definitely agree.  and a deep bow! I've been moderating a couple of forum's.
I'd bow back, but apparently that's the kind of thing Americans just can't do anymore....
It's probably worth asking in this context, what would you ban someone for?
Of course, something that might actually get a person in trouble with the law would be banned in a public forum I moderated, but I'd use a pretty gentle standard of evidence in such a situation. On the mailing list I moderated (still do, I suppose, though things are very quiet these days) I never had to ban anyone, but I would have if they'd flamed someone in a totally unprovoked way, particulary a newbie. There are those folks who seem to view the Internet as their personal emotional dumping ground, and get on to vent. There's not a lot you can do with such folks. A long, persistent stream of posts that distract from the topic at hand might be a good reason to ban someone....
My view on this kind of thing was that people can flame me all they want, but if they attack someone else then I'd have to step in and try to take things down a notch. Sometimes this actually became a problem because a person might get riled up at me and then someone else would chime in and the guy who was attacking me would just turn his venom on the next guy, which meant I had to jump up and call a halt to a discussion that had probably already "gone too far."
The tactic I've found works well when dealing with unruly folks on the Internet is to assume, even when you know it isn't really true, that a personal attack is made in teasing tone rather than an angry one. That way it's possible to respond with humor and wit rather than angrily. Of course, I imperfectly employ my own method from time to time... but it's an ideal, not a rule.
|
|