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

Profile: Orson Burleigh
About
User Name: Orson Burleigh
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: Retired
Interests: Reading, Photography, Shooting
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Last Visit: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 6:14:28 PM
Number of Posts: 123
[0.02% of all post / 0.06 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Should 'a' be replaced by 'the'?
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 12:24:10 PM
Koh Elaine wrote:
By upholding a spirit of compassion and sympathy for others and wishing happiness for people in the world, we contribute to world peace.

1. Is the sentence OK?
2. Should a be replaced by the?

Thanks.

The sentence is OK with either a or the.

Think The choice of a or the is really a philosophical question. Is there only one spirit of compassion and sympathy, or might compassion and sympathy potentially have many iterations, appearing in many differing forms?
Topic: mac out
Posted: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:01:19 AM
Fruity wrote:
How's life treating you, all?

mac out
to overeat, especially the type of food served at McDonald’s fast-food restaurants.
I’ve been in Europe for a month, and I just want to get home and mac out.

Is this a common phrase? What is the past tense of "mac"?


We are well, thanks for asking. Along the Chesapeake Bay the Ides of March Storm (also known as Storm Stella) brought us a little snow, then sleet and freezing rain. Coffee had been made before the electric power went out, so it wasn't too bad for us retired folks.

In re 'mac out': As part of the well over 60 set, I've not encountered the verb to mac. I expect that Thar is right on the derivation and usage. Thar's well-founded advice that you consider both the normal formation of past tenses and the vanishingly rare use of 'c' to graphically represent the sound of a final 'k' in English verbs suggests that a safe past tense of mac out would be macked out. Donthailand's 'mac'd out' also avoids some possible confusion.

Maced out presents a problem as there is a colloquially used verb 'to mace' which means to apply pepper spray or to assault using pepper spray. To be 'maced out' would indicate that one has been on the receiving end of such a spray.
Topic: Punish Or Pardon
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:09:04 PM
Dreamy wrote:


Did you know a lot of people from the capital city of Italy are roamin' the earth?[/quote]

It is said that SPQR actually stood for "Sono pazzi questi romani" : "These Romans are crazy"Think
Topic: Punish Or Pardon
Posted: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 8:33:09 AM
Applause Being an unapologetic devotee of puns I would enthusiastically pardon the first two and would release the perpetrator of the third with the mildest of warnings: 'Tortoise' for 'taught us' does qualify as a pun in certain non-rhotic or aberrantly rhotic dialects of English.
Topic: Inch or Inches?
Posted: Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:34:53 PM
One fathom... the present time might well be identified as the 28th century (A.U.C.)

cf pretentious non sequitur
Topic: In the News - Should They Continue?
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:38:30 AM
Hope123 wrote:
Despite Presidents Day, Protesters Give Trump No Respite

http://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/despite-president-s-day-protesters-give-trump-no-respite-n723436

Peaceful Protests against US government policies are not going away any time soon, it seems. Several policies were highlighted in marches around the country. Bernie Sanders is working hard too from Facebook posts I've seen.

I would have put this "In the News" category but only Daemon can use that sub forum.

What do you think?

Should they continue? Is it doing any good or are they just being ignored?

Is being ignored why they are continuing?

Are they contributing to T's frustration?

Edited - I am curious as to how common protests were around the world or in the US in 2016 and previous to that. Is this a fairly new phenomenon, or have I just not been paying attention. I have heard of some in Canada but nothing very large. Perhaps the one protesting the taking away of liberties in Canada in fear right after 9/11 is the only one I paid attention to.





Protests should continue. The 'right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' is a fundamental right, a right which should be asserted constantly and exercised often.

As to your questions: 'Is it doing any good or are they just being ignored? '
The protests and the protesters are obviously not being ignored. If pricked does Trump not metaphorically bleed? He does indeed - he metaphorically bleeds effervescently and in Technicolor. The man is a political haemophiliac.

If by 'doing any good,' you mean to ask if the protestors are going to drive Trump from office, the answer is: probably not. In the short term the current protests may well be solidifying support among those who enthusiastically voted for Trump. As an example of this phenomena, I would cite the Parti Québécois hardliner's protest against Pierre Trudeau during the June 1968 election campaign: their chanting, 'Trudeau au poteau!' while attempting to literally assault (with rocks and bottles) the grandstand where Trudeau was sitting almost certainly magnified Trudeau's Liberal election majority.

If by 'doing any good,' you mean to ask if the protestors are going to cause Trump to re-examine (or just to examine) his positions, policies, goals and tactics? Almost certainly, though not immediately and, in some cases, not with the effect that the protestors desire.

Having been elected, Trump must now choose among the contradictory goals of the various parts of the coalition that supported him. Some of the contradictions can be finessed, some constituencies can be ignored or duped. Other programmatic inconsistencies must be addressed: as President Trump will have to disappoint some groups of supporters. Beyond that, and more pressing, Trump will have to deal with the Congress. The ability to effectively work with the Congress has been the sine qua non of successful modern presidencies

In reply to your question about the seeming sudden advent of protests. Anti-Trump protests prior to election were less prominently reported, and were probably smaller than those protests have been since the election. Anti-Trump protests in relation to real estate deals and other allegedly improper business practices have been arranged at various places since the at least the early '90s.

In a more general sense, my dateable personal memory of political events, movements and assorted dissatisfactions only goes back to 1956. Waves of political protests of various sorts have occurred throughout that entire period. Causes have been identified and espoused by the Left (as identified at any given time), then lost, dropped and seemingly forgotten, only to be revived and fervently prosecuted by the Right (as identified at any given time).
Topic: Do You Know About Woolly Mammoth?(20)
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:49:37 PM
Signs warning drivers to beware of mammoths crossing the roads might well become a common sight in some of the world's more northerly areasThink
Topic: Hang in
Posted: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:23:08 PM
The ring-tailed bandit actually looks quite comfortable, in spite of the seemingly woebegone expression. Given the raccoon tribe's legendary proclivity for opportunism, a ride all the way to the land-fill might have been regarded as transition to the land of 'free bubble-up and rainbow stew.'Think
Topic: IMMIGRATION laws: Two viewpoints
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:44:53 AM
Lotje1000 wrote:
Orson Burleigh wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.


If one is to compare viewpoints, it seems relevant to compare more in depth than just "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", especially when the thread is posted in the legal subforum. For instance, a common argument used against liberals is "well you wouldn't let strangers into your house either". This argument mistakenly simplifies the situation and completely ignores the point that liberals don't necessarily oppose the vetting of potential immigrants.

It would be far more useful to compare legal views between, for instance, people who want little vetting (to, I don't know, protect privacy), people who prefer vetting the way it already is, people who want extremer measures where certain groups are completely excluded and people who don't want any immigration at all.

Simply saying "liberals like immigrants and conservatives don't", doesn't actually add any value to a discussion, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question, Orson?


Yes, you have addressed my request for elucidation. Thank you.

I appreciate your having clearly outlined four major immigration control issues: the appropriate level of vetting and control; the sorts of people who should or should not be excluded; the standards for admission; and the number of people, if any, who should be admitted by any given country.
Topic: IMMIGRATION laws: Two viewpoints
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:47:19 AM
Lotje1000 wrote:
Those are very general viewpoints that don't even touch on the actual topics of debate: legislating immigration.


Please elucidate.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.