Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary
The user name or password entered is incorrect. Please try again.
Acronyms & Abbr.
Español / Spanish
Deutsch / German
Français / French
Italiano / Italian
Português / Portuguese
Nederlands / Dutch
Norsk / Norwegian
Ελληνική / Greek
Русский / Russian
The Free Dictionary Language Forums
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, April 19, 2013 9:39:00 PM
Number of Posts:
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day]
Last 10 Posts
The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation.
Friday, April 19, 2013 9:38:58 PM
Wow, thanks everyone for the differing and yet all thought provoking discussions on Mary Shelley's wonderful book...well done. The first and only time I have picked it up, I was in my early teens and yet still, it has reminded me that the human condition has always involved terrible suffering, for most of us.
So the situation in the US, with all the lone violent acts carried out in the last year or so and the sadly, completely inadequate way most people are trying to find a solution is indicative of the human condition also...for me, busying themselves with legislation and/or attempts to emotionally involve the masses makes them more like Shelley's Dr Frankenstein than they may realise...
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:37:00 AM
...so are you, Blue2,
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:35:54 AM
How nude is too nude when kids are viewing?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:29:45 AM
Funny, isn't it...how we worry and then wonder what others do...you obviously have done what you personally feel is best for your children and I applaud that, not worrying what the trends are in your community.
I am Australian and would say that we are quite similar to the British in our attitudes toward nudity in the media and that. I remember the whole of Australia wondering why they kept pixellating Janet Jackson's boob after everyone had already seen it...including us, and it wasn't bare anyway, she had this metal thing over her nipple as I recall.
In any case, and please, this is not a personal insult to any American, more to that anonymous entity out there in all countries, the powers that be... There seems to be a dreadful amount of censure and the longest discussions over the issue of sex and what should not be shown in the US, and I think that's a large part of the reason women dress in such a risqué manner, in front of the camera anyway, and why young celebrities hop out of vehicles wearing no panties and opening their legs. I believe that if that stuff isn't made such a fuss of, then it eventually balances itself out. But while the church, or whoever wants to make such a big deal of it, and continues to do so, there will only ever be more and more women wanting to bare their breasts because nipples aren't allowed and what have you.
Did anyone know there is supposed to be a US site on the net called, 'nipple slips,' containing photos of celebrities deliberately baring nipple...
An American friend had to ask me recently if we were talking about the same film as he hadn't seen half of the nudity in it that I had here. Mind you, the film was quite an old one and it had been some time since he had seen it.
What really gets me is that there seems to be no similar complaints coming from those quarters when it comes to violence on the screen...as human beings we are strangely de-sensitised to death and dead bodies from television and yet many of us have never even seen one in real life until a close family member dies.
Seems a little hypocritical to me. Never-the-less the human body is a beautiful thing and as long as the child understands sex is a grown up's way to show love and to be close and that the intention is to join together to make a new family, then it's better for the child to know sex is a topic up for discussion in the home from any age. Then, at an appropriate and older age, a parent could always explain that the making of a new family may not always eventuate, or it might for a time, when a couple lives together - they are still a new family, even without offspring. And of course you are right, the child shouldn't have to watch the actual mechanics of it until sex ed. class in high school when they are more able to handle it, but I still see nudity as highly desirable for children to see and become comfortable with...after all, we are all born naked. We socialise them out of so much of their innocence, to see sex and/or nudity as dirty or bad is, to me, is the crime.
...makes you wonder who is getting so upset about sex in the media and what is behind the insistence for this bunch of males, for men it is largely...I thought men liked to see more flesh...but that's a whole other discussion.
Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:12:51 AM
I sincerely hope that you will come back here to check and see this, quite often a native speaker of any language can learn from someone who has learnt to speak it as a second language.
You made a remark to me about indirect speech, yet if you look at the original question, the student was given a sentence that was not a direct statement to work with-
It is widely believed that the Americans are developing a new radio telescope.
then the students were asked to put this sentence into a form of indirect speech, or perhaps I should say, 'another form of'.
In indirect speech, when the use of general subjects is to be omitted, for example,
, then using the passive voice to report the event is one of the ways to achieve this. As the sentence began with the general subject of "It," I thought first of the passive voice as an alternative to the structure of the sentence given.
Whatever gave you the notion that I couldn't distinguish between the use of the passive voice and indirect speech...no wonder my,
English as a Foreign Language
students would sometimes look like they were drowning after one of my explanations!
Every man is a divinity in disguise, a god playing the fool.
Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:58:12 AM
I think that what Emerson was getting at here is a summation of what his personal spiritual inclinations were, ie. perhaps that we are limited to our view of true reality by our senses which keep us contained as units within our bodies, alone and small. But when we recognise our spiritual dimension, then there is that of God within us all, and this is what connects us as human beings, makes us as one whole, not separate at all. Perhaps that's why we are wired to be such social creatures.
We have the potential to be as god-like in that we can demonstrate immense love, compassion, caring and kindness for others, but we also have the potential to commit the most heinous of crimes and be as far from god-like as it is possible to be. We are immense "potentials" as beings.
playing the fool
part; here I think he is referring to our flesh, to our imperfections as human beings. I think the fact that we will not achieve anything even close to perfection while here on earth is something to be celebrated. When we fall down, if we can pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and learn from our mistakes, then we can claim real growth, and I believe that is an important part of why we are here...growth on a large scale equals evolution; a higher, or more refined form of existence.
All the trappings of the flesh, if one is religiously inclined, doesn't this mean that God made us just as he wanted us, that we should be happy in this life, as much as we can without hurting other sentient beings and grapple to know and understand our very humanness, rather than to be in a state of constant prayer for him to remove the very thing he gave us, our humanity.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there is an important place in every life for one form of prayer or another, the process of being still is to know God. But as in all things, there must be a balance. If the church wants to take care of our souls, then it must first look to our learned perceptions and emotions...for me, nothing can be isolated and separated without losing some of the true picture of the nature of the human being.
Personally, I believe my maker does not want me to do it hard here, that if I can be happy for a moment, then that is good. Being brought up as a Catholic, I now believe that all mammals are sexual creatures and that we should be at peace with this in us, that as long as we use it in conjunction with our consciences, then it can be another way to connect on a spiritual level, with another human being, rather than only connecting when alone.
We are made to learn to grow, hence all our foolish ways. Perhaps tolerance, real tolerance of others is part of the key to unlocking the positive potential within us. By not allowing a sense of aggravation to drive us to dislike someone whose behaviour seems a little odd, but rather to look within to find our own source of dis-ease that has brought forth the aggravation, perhaps this is more what we should be concentrating on. Perhaps we all look for externals far too much in this age of materialism, perhaps it is within where the search for true satisfaction will eventually be found. If there is divinity within, as Emerson suggests ever so philosophically, then this is the source of our true nature, and the source for being kinder to others as we recognise them as part of ourselves.
Society pushes so many individuals away for not conforming to our rules of physical beauty or being acceptably cool etc. and adults do this every day, not just our children, they must, after all, have an example for their behaviour initially and they almost always use the parental one, and this behaviour causes so much damage to those cast aside as unnecessary. Then we hear complaints in the press of jail overcrowding or the numbers of people with mental disorders increasing...we are society, so we are responsible for the behaviour within society and what individuals that society produces. So only we can change what society inflicts on the individual and therefore change the statistics of troubled people.
To me, this goes with judgement, we are all far too fast to leap to judgement of others and I think this damages both ourselves and others. I have found that when I am too willing to judge others, it is because I have been judging myself as not good enough in some way or other...the pressure of society being internalised. If I can let go of that, if I can work at being the best 'me' I can be, then not only am I not looking to cut others down with my judgementality but I find working on myself is a full time job, and I don't have one second spare to judge another and I can simply let them be...it's a good feeling.
The five rules of Socialism
Monday, December 13, 2010 4:26:28 PM
Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:55:32 AM
Back on casting SH, you need someone who can smoke a churchwarden pipe without looking like a wally.
You're right, of course, but what you really wanted to say is that some of them could potentially look like utter knobs! [At least I hope, 'wally' was your 'polite' word...] I really couldn't see Hugh Grant, for example, as any kind of Sherlock, I'm afraid to say...
And it is the pipe, but you forget, Britain is full of men who could wear one quite well, it's something in their affectations, their general manner...
You've seen the new one, what about that young man, I thought he stood up to the difficultness of the part extremely well...and the chap who played Watson, again another perfect casting choice, not to mention the fellow they had in the role of Lestrade, the detective who works with him.
Ok, I have some of the actors' names from the new series, Sherlock played by
, [what an unfortunate name], then Watson is played to perfection by
and Lestrade by
, of course, I knew I knew his face. Martin Freeman is probably best known for
Gee, look at that...made by
in conjunction with
and you say the US hasn't aired it...odd, isn't it, although I don't doubt you.
Oh, apparently heavily edited versions were played on US
stations just last October but you can now watch the unedited versions on demand at this link-
but only until the day after Boxing Day so you'd better have a look in the next couple of weeks, if anyone is interested enough. Believe me, they have the same effect that
The Sixth Sense
had on me, as soon as it's finished, you find yourself wanting to watch it from the beginning again at once, in order to pick up all the bits missed on the first viewing. ...wonder why on earth you would want to edit anything from any one of those episodes...hardly sex driven plot lines, and nothing too gory, of which I've never been a fan, I prefer to do the Hitchcockian thing with my imagination...always scare the living daylights out of myself.
So yeah, excaelis [what the hell does that mean anyway please...let alone how one might pronounce it] what about Cumberbun then? Oops, what is it...
Wednesday, December 8, 2010 11:23:07 PM
Oh my goodness people, where have you all been hiding? The BBC has just finished making yet another Sherlock Holmes series earlier this year. Now I'll wait for all the jaffas to get chucked at me while I tell you that they have completely updated the pair.
The two young British actors are brilliant, Watson I've seen before in something, but
, I think this may be the Sherlock for you...he is young and if you quite like the look of someone like Hugh Grant, you'll adore him. It was made by the chap who currently writes for
, and I daresay I would even let him have a go at messing with my beloved Shakespeare, he manages to extract such a different perspective from such well worn characters.
In any case, the new series is called simply,
. It is set in modern day London, Holmes has a website and instead of his opium pipe, he uses cigarette patches...
this is a three patch problem, Watson!
There are 3 movie length episodes but I think the BBC has commissioned another three, probably coming out in the UK quite soon. Mobile phones are used in abundance and Watson is a veteran of Afghanistan.
If you enjoy a good 'whodunnit,' you will love these, all the similarities with the original Holmes and even some correlations with his earlier mysteries...anyone remember the story about cyphers and the Dancing men...have a look at the first of the three episodes and keep that story in mind. These young men have truly done Doyle's character justice, I think.
Now for my trivia...did anyone know that there was no such address as 221B Baker Street, I too immediately noticed the missing B in the original statement,
. But Doyle's books proved to be so popular worldwide that people coming from abroad during the summers were always hanging around Baker Street and asking in the shops exactly where it was that Mr Holmes lived. So sometimes in the 70s, I believe, Camden Borough Council actually spent a great deal of money changing numbers in Baker Street that then ballooned out to the surrounding streets etc. so an actual address, "221B" could exist.
Then Doyle killed him off in one of the stories. This precipitated into a full blown protest at the time where the young men of London wore black armbands all over the city for weeks, or longer...eventually, 2 years later, Doyle decided to resuscitated his popular character.
But I think the best story I have ever heard about Sherlock Holmes was told to me by my boss when I worked for Swiss Bank Int'l in the city one summer. He had a friend who managed a branch of Barclays Bank down near Victoria somewhere, and this was apparently the branch where Sherlock held his account. He said to this very day, his mail is always peppered with requests from all over the world in which people still ask if Mr Holmes could possibly help with a real life case involving someone close to them. When I was in London, I think there were a lot of letters from India, perhaps IndiaTV was replaying episodes at the time.
In any case, this gentleman, the manager at Barclays, being so typically British makes it his business every day to answer each and every request, no matter how outrageous, with Mr Holmes' sincerest apologies that he no longer takes on any cases as the years have crept by, but he always adds that Mr Holmes is still healthy and very happy now running his bee farm in Sussex. He said otherwise he is prone to get replies asking after Mr Holmes' health.
...only in England.
NPR and The Republicans
Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:38:54 AM
I'm so sorry I missed all this...I got snowed under all of a sudden with a personal family issue and promptly forgot I even wrote that request, but I have to thank you, HWNN1961...it seems to me that you are a voice of reason amongst quite a bit of insanity in that when you spoke of the rantings of the far right, you did help me to see with a little more understanding why my partner has this tendency to raise the pitch of his voice, stop listening to anything I say and then talk ad nauseum of "the economics of politics" which I am the first to say is not my strong point. This phenomena seems to be another of the political idiosyncrasies common only to the US right, at least in my experience.
By the way, he calls himself a
but what the hell does that mean anyway? He, like you, is very careful never to align himself with any major party in the US...a sure sign to me, now two of you have stated it, that there is room for a third, but only if it's genuine, alternative to the two main powerhouses that I see little difference in at times. How can the people of the world's largest democracy sit back and accept no choice in the options given to them by their political servants! It does not instil me with hope, I'm afraid.
I do understand that there would be a section of society that is anxious to stop seeing their hard earned tax dollar being squandered by a government that has, at times, been simply unable to say where huge chunks of cash have disappeared to within the system...this is completely unacceptable. I can even see that for some, this would be the number one priority. After all, when the amount of money that must flow daily throw the US government coffers is simply imagined, I would expect rioting on the streets because there is no national and totally free health service for every US citizen...isn't that one very good reason why we entrust our political servants with that sort of money in the first place?
However, to me, it seems like a futile exercise when that one piece of policy, to balance the books, if you will, make the governing bodies accountable financially is the only piece of legislation needed to carry someone into office. The Green Party here in their early days made that same mistake, one rarely gets to hold a seat when campaigning on one issue alone and has no opinion on all other issues, no matter how important that one issue may be. The wheels of the dinosaur bureaucracy must continue to grind on regardless and that takes all sitting members to have a measured opinion on most political issues of the day. One cannot sit in the Senate here and abstain to vote on all issues except those of the environment or they would be letting their constituency down so badly, they would never see the inside of the house again as a sitting member...
But I'm on my own soap box now so I'll hop down. Thanks for your time, and the next time I am in the US, I will make it my business to have a listen to NPR.
Main Forum RSS :
Forum Terms and Guidelines
Copyright © 2008-2021
. All rights reserved.