FreeflyChile

You know, I always wondered about that saying "communism works in theory" -- in reality, it's not a good theory because it's a theory for humans without taking into account human behaviors or nature.... just my opinion and complete sidetrack...

Where do you rate Spanish in the list? I have been teaching myself that for a while now, and it has been difficult, but I know part of the problem is age. I think the order that you learn makes a difference too. If you learn French, then Latin, then Spanish, learning spanish becomes much easier because the basic structure and some words carry over.

As someone that learned spanish first, learned english, then had to re-learn spanish, I have to say that learning English for Spanish speakers is easier than learning Spanish for English speakers. While there are a lot of complicated nuances of English, the basic speaking is much easier because of the lack of gender rules for nouns and conjugation. I personally like English as a means of expression because it's very precise. I think Spanish is much more lyrical and poetic, but it's harder to just 'get to the point' about what you're talking about.

Some words are just tricky. I even added the parentheses because I wasn't sure and I didn't want to just get up and go get the dictionary. We mispell a word every now and then. What gets me is how immigrants fuck up the grammar of the English language. Granted, that's the hardest part for them to learn. Then there's all the 'jive' and 'slang' and regional colloquialisms. Chuck I also think that English is getting worse and worse in native speakers because of things like instant messenger and text messaging. people grow up always typing internet slang and not using the 'real' words and it becomes a habit.

Why is that? Is it because the immigrants who speak and write englis better than us, go to classes and learn our language properly? Is it a reflection on our school system in this country that schools are more absorbed in (like Texas) testing students and preparing them more for these 'mandated' tests rather than concentrating on giving our kids a good education? Is it just a pure desire to learn our language and be a part of our society? Thanks. Chuck My theory is that people that are born here learn to understand and speak before they learn to write, so they learn a much more informal English. Then, when taught to write, they have to reconcile the English they know with what is considered correct. An immigrant usually will learn reading/writing/speaking simultaneously or even learn reading/writing before the speaking part. Therefore the person pays more attention to the correct grammar structure and spelling.

lately i have only been online for like an hour at a time - i don't usually invite then because i hate having to leave when i am hosting.

Well, good thing that *now* we have a reason to avoid her concerts...

Here you go: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3144416;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Depends whether a reasonable person would only sleep with you if you really were a doctor. I'm more wondering how this will get used in statutory rape defenses.

OK fine...how about the White House?

And she gawn.... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html

The only way to avoid reverse-racism and reverse-sexism seems to be to vote for transgendered Michael Jackson. Or an inanimate object. Oh, wait, Al Gore already ran.

Is a bank considered a store? if so, then a bank.

Drinking with a straw = no lift drinking = drinkmonauti. going through the drive through and then having lunch in your car = eating while also traversing horizontally = eatmonauti.

Sure! AND racist or sexist, depending on who you vote. Your only chance is to vote for a 70yo black lady for President! But be careful to avoid reverse-racism

Enemies do. And they'll pounce. Friends do not. I would say that in the public eye in a situation such as a political race, even neutral parties could look at a seemingly ambiguous statement such as this one and interpret it negatively or assume she meant the worst. I think it has a lot to do with context, and the context here is a race for the presidential nomination which has had gender and race, if not front and center, at least as an issue that has received a fair amount of attention.

I agree with everything you said. The thing is, and you'd know this better than most given what you do for a living, people naturally assume the worst in an ambiguous statement. I think that especially in a field like politics, and especially one where gender and race are issues, it's not unreasonable to go "hmm..." when a statement like that is uttered. Also, even if she meant absolutely no harm by it, given the climate of the race for the dem nomination, at the very least she showed exceedingly poor judgment in her choice of words.

I think that the statement made was racist because of the generalism of it, how broad it was. It implies everything from "people vote along racial lines and being black has helped him with the black vote" (which, if true, is not racist IMO) to "his achievements stem from the fact he's black" (and as such not from his intelligence, charisma, etc - THAT is racist, again IMO). If she had said something along the lines of "voting has seemingly been divided along racial lines in this race, with Obama taking the majority of the black vote, and that has been an important aspect of the lead he currently holds" - then there wouldn't be this mess. I just find it more amusing than anything that, not so long ago, people were asking if Obama were electable because of his being black/this country not ready for that/blah blah blah whereas now the attack seems to be "well, he's WINNING because of his race"

Then they release the "XXX live at the YYY" album . (I am old enough to have heard Cream live, in 1967) So if the live album is the only one you own, and then you go see the band and they play the songs exactly like the original studio versions, where does that leave you?

Sure thing. And there are also bands that follow their recordings very closely. Rush is an example -- they play in concert almost note for note against their often complex recordings. Benefit of being a classically trained musician, I guess. But either way, as long as they're not up there preaching to me how wonderful Bush is, or telling me how great the economy is, I don't care. Of course, then there are bands that sometimes people go to see because of their political message, such as Rage Against the Machine, Pearl Jam, etc. But, as has been noted, to each their own.

Like, for example, if they are a Terminator.

A Ferrari dealership.

One of my favorite things about high definition television is when they show shuttle launches on the HDNET channel. Every time I see it, it just never stops amazing me.

I've thought about that. For each of them, I would say, "Explain to voters why the opposing candidate or candidates would be a good president." Here's the reason - I want to see if the candidate can say something substantively good about the other candidates. Nobody disagrees on everything. And it'd be nice to see what candidates could actually do it and seem genuine. If a candidate can't say something good about the competition, it is indicative to me of a flaw in the person's character. And indicative of arrogance and a "myself" attitude. This is more of the kind of thing I had in mind when I posted it. Honestly, I thought about posting that very question, but decided to go with the other one. I do think that it would likely lead to things such as "McCain served his country well" "Senator Clinton stood strongly by her husband when he went through a tough time", stuff like that. But like you, I think it would be very telling to see if someone says something of substance about the other candidates.

Really? You'd be wrong. Note the word capable. The Japanese had no capability and no intention of invading the mainland US, so Yamamoto's point is moot. Is there any military in the world with that capability?