The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: FounDit
About
User Name: FounDit
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests: Psychology, philosophy, thought-provoking discussions
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 19, 2011
Last Visit: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:56:56 PM
Number of Posts: 10,523
[1.13% of all post / 3.83 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: His look like to his dad becomes more and more day by day.
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:56:44 PM
sb70012 wrote:
Thank you. How about this one:

His likeness to his dad increases every day.


This would be the best, but you could also say, "His likeness to his dad grows more every day." This is a bit more informal.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: the man at the post office
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:52:55 PM
navi wrote:
1) I was running in the park today and ran into the man from the post office.

2) I was running in the park today and ran into the man at the post office.

Let's say that we have met a man at the post office, or I have talked to you about a man I met at the post office. I meet this man again in the park. Which of the sentences '1' or '2' could I use?

Does '1' necessarily implies that he works at the post office?

Gratefully,
Navi


You could say,

1) "I was running in the park today, and ran into the man I know from the post office."
(This one is the best for someone you have met at the post office, but who may not work there.)

or,

"2) I was running in the park today, and ran into that man I know who works at the post office." (This one for the man who works there.)



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Chut living with his sister...
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:44:43 PM
Amybal wrote:
Hi, is there anything wrong in these sentences?
A couple of things.

Short summary
Chut lives with his sister Jane, who is the only one doing anything around the house. But soon, Chut will need to learn to take care of himself when Jane gets married and moves to Japan.

Long summary
Chut and Jane are two siblings who are polar opposites, personality-wise. Chut is somewhat of a loser, while Jane excels in everything she does. However, Chut is overprotective when it comes to Jane's love life. So when she starts dating the Thai-Japanese Moji, she has to keep Chut from finding out about their relationship. Complications arise when Moji asks her to marry him, because it means she has to move to Japan, and she knows Chut will never agree to that.

Details are based on online sources.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Danny wrote his homework book
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:39:44 PM
Markings like this are often called, "scribbles", or "scribbling(s)". He "scribbled" on his homework sheet. You could also simply say he "marked/marked up" or "drew on" his homework paper.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Error Correction
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:36:23 PM
There could be a comma inserted in the last part of line 8.

This book is hardly sufficient for a thorough knowledge of CG,
but may at least contribute to the process of learning about it.

And while I don't think it is required, there could be one inserted in line 1, if you think of CG and cognitive linguistics as two separate fields.

One reason is the vast literature that now exists in CG, and in cognitive linguistics (1)


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: What is
Posted: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:30:18 PM
Atatürk wrote:
What's the situation going forward?

How would you paraphrase the above?


This could be said any number of ways. JJ's suggestion is a good one.

You could also say,

"How do you think this will work out?"

"What do you see for the future of this?"

"What do you see happening next?"

"Do your think this will work for us?"


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: United We Stand!
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:38:50 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
We don't need to change the rules. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.


You mean like Citizens United? No. I mean a return to our system of checks and balances where Congress doesn't abandon its responsibilities and cede power to unelected bureaucrats.I also don't think the founding fathers would have approved of the current system of campaign finance, nor of gerrymandering, not the dozens of other ways the system is rigged and being manipulated by the 1%. You should probably read some Thomas Jefferson and what he thought about how often the rules would need to be updated or outright changed.
I have read all of the Federalists Papers, though I admit it has been quite a few years ago. But the point is that the system was designed to give the people the power to control those who governed them. We can't just sit back and let it run on auto-pilot, as I said to towan52. To fix the problems we currently are experiencing, the population needs to be properly educated, so they can make good decisions, not herded into top-down Socialism.

FounDit wrote:
And I'm a bit confused by this statement of yours, "After all, this is supposed to the united STATES of America, not the united people of America."
hmmm so "We the people of the United States, should be "We the states of the united states? Our government is supposed to be a representative government, how do you think it is not badly broken when no matter what the public support for a bill is, 0% or 100% there is still only a 30% chance it will pass?
[/quote]
Well, I saw no evidence that those percentages were correct, or why I should believe them. They are simply assertions, supposedly based on one poll, or study. The second point is that the people of the United States were to be represented by both representatives in the House and by Senators from their States. Two distinctly different forms of representation, which was designed to permit two levels of representation - collectively as citizens, and from a State level with its own unique conditions.

In toto, it was to be a collection of States, run by the people, united in a common system at a Federal level for the purposes of National Security, sovereignty, and the collective good of the population.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: United We Stand!
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:23:20 PM
towan52 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
... the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated ...

Really???
Yes, really. That is, unless you know of some place where political excesses have been totally eliminated. I know of no such place. We've had several, but managed to pull back from falling over the edge of tyranny so far.

Nothing wrong in aiming high!
Agreed. We should aim to eliminate excesses as much as possible. But given human nature, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

The problem with the constitution of 1788 and the Bill of Rights is the bounded rationality of the late 18th Century. I mean, in a couple of weeks I'm having a surgical procedure on my heart to correct a problem (mainly caused by the parser and FounDit Whistle Just kidding!). I'm glad that it's being done with 21st century expertise rather than with 18th Century know-how. it may, of course, be a totally unnecessary procedure performed to line the doctor's pocket.

I'd love to see any email exchanges between Madison and the British parliament - do you think Wikileaks has them?


The problem with you analogy is that medical procedures and human nature are not even remotely close. The Founders were very aware of the tendency of humans to wind up under tyranny if it was given the chance to be installed. Their goal was to try to create a system whereby that would be obviated as much as possible. But it requires the citizens to be aware, knowledgeable, and participating in maintaining the freedoms established in the Constitution and Bill of rights. Hopefully, we still have enough of those kinds of citizens to do that.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: Life & suffering.
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 8:13:47 PM
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Here's my tuppence worth: take two people; one has been raised an only child - never wanted for anything. Always got the best. Daddy's pet kind of thing. The other person has had to learn to do without - to learn patience and consideration for others. Which of these will normally be the better human being? The most reliable friend or employee? The answer is obvious - the one has learned in the School of hard knocks. You may say that that is hardly suffering,but it's all relative.


True enough. It's a bit ironic, but grinding a blade against a stone improves it, sharpens it and makes it useful. But grind it too much, or the wrong way, and it becomes useless again. So it seems to be with humans, too.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Topic: United We Stand!
Posted: Sunday, March 24, 2019 12:50:55 PM
Wow. So much to say about that video, it's hard to know where to begin. The idea that we all come together in a kumbaya moment and eliminate corruption is a nice fantasy, but hardly realistic.

I had a flash of the Founders of the country arguing and struggling to come to agreements on how to create our nation. The whole purpose was to try to set up a system whereby the people were represented in both the State and the Federal system, so the individual States were given equal representation in order to prevent, or at least, minimize the inherent corruption of humans. After all, this is supposed to the the united STATES of America, not the united people of America.

Each state is supposed to be an independent experiment in governance. Yet each state is also supposed to be committed to a unified idea of a national idea. This would flow from the idea that the citizens would unite in a common desire to be members of this country and support its existence. And for the last two hundred years that system has worked pretty well. More people have been lifted out of poverty, have been given a higher standard of living, and a greater amount of freedom and prosperity than any generation in the history of Mankind.

Is there corruption? Of course. We are all human. But the system we have is set up so that whenever excesses occur, the people and the States will hopefully correct it as much as possible, but it can never be eliminated. Besides that, those groups that influence the government represent tens of thousands, if not millions of citizens, which is exactly what our government is designed to do.

Reducing corruption is always a good idea, and I have no problem with that. But I think we would do better to actually enforce the rules of the system that was created rather than change the system itself. It has worked well for too long to try to change it now. Let it work the way is it supposed to work. If enough people in enough States decide together, then things will change, just as the system is designed to permit. And that is exactly what the presenter, Jennifer Lawrence, was advocating. We don't need to change the rules. We just need to enforce the ones we already have.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.