|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2016 13:23:49 GMT
I had a nosefly on yesterday's leg of the trip. passed and pulled in so close in front, I switched to the passing lane to get clear space in my braking distance. I believe I've mentioned before Oregon has a law against doing that to a truck.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 13, 2016 19:54:47 GMT
I'm fairly certain most places have a law against that in some form. Maybe not specifically aimed at trucks, but at least something that says "keep a safe distance" that could be invoked by officers if they wanted or needed to.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2016 22:38:12 GMT
I'm fairly certain most places have a law against that in some form. Maybe not specifically aimed at trucks, but at least something that says "keep a safe distance" that could be invoked by officers if they wanted or needed to. But normally it affects the person in back. This law prohibits pulling too close in front.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 13, 2016 23:00:20 GMT
I'm fairly certain most places have a law against that in some form. Maybe not specifically aimed at trucks, but at least something that says "keep a safe distance" that could be invoked by officers if they wanted or needed to. But normally it affects the person in back. This law prohibits pulling too close in front. Yeah, but if you're pulling in too closely in front of someone, you're not keeping a safe distance and you're also preventing the person behind you from keeping a safe distance, so you're double dumb and double dangerous. Any cop with half a brain who sees someone doing that should pull them over and have a chat with them, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Sept 14, 2016 3:33:42 GMT
Time to make it official then with Nosefly. Any insect that wishes to hover about a foot in front of your face, or even closer. This is also used by the transport industry for any vehicle that overtakes then sits a couple of foot from your front bumper because they just dont want to be behind a truck. I had the exact same thing that happened to the cat happen to me this morning. Only it was a yellowjacket. I walked out the back door this morning and before I got one foot out the door the bee landed on the tip of my nose. Luckily it was a little cold outside and his reactions were a wee bit slow or I could have spent the day doing a Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer impersonation.
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Sept 14, 2016 8:03:02 GMT
But normally it affects the person in back. This law prohibits pulling too close in front. Yeah, but if you're pulling in too closely in front of someone, you're not keeping a safe distance and you're also preventing the person behind you from keeping a safe distance, so you're double dumb and double dangerous. ...or intending to do a crash for cash.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 14, 2016 8:19:55 GMT
There is no actual law to aid the stupid in sitting too close to the vehicle behind. You have to wonder how they do that.... They overtake, pull in and slow down?.... Just why did they overtake in the first place?.
I think its just they dont want to Follow the vehicle in front. We spoil the view. I have been known to use the horn on people like that.
It gets especially tiresome when you try to overtake them, and they speed up.... Thus we have the truck in the middle lane on a motorway holding up a lot of other traffic whilst the slower vehicle on the inside lane speeds UP to prevent the truck getting past?...
And then when eventually the truck pulls back in to the inside lane, the [redacted] thing slows down to 45mph again..... Yes we DO NEED a law against this.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 14, 2016 8:50:04 GMT
There is no actual law to aid the stupid in sitting too close to the vehicle behind. You have to wonder how they do that.... They overtake, pull in and slow down?.... Just why did they overtake in the first place?. I think its just they dont want to Follow the vehicle in front. We spoil the view. I have been known to use the horn on people like that. It gets especially tiresome when you try to overtake them, and they speed up.... Thus we have the truck in the middle lane on a motorway holding up a lot of other traffic whilst the slower vehicle on the inside lane speeds UP to prevent the truck getting past?... And then when eventually the truck pulls back in to the inside lane, the [redacted] thing slows down to 45mph again..... Yes we DO NEED a law against this. And as I said, any traffic cop worth his paycheck should see that as reckless behavior and reckless driving is illegal, whether the thing you do is specifically mentioned in the law or not. If you're required by law to keep a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you, then it should naturally follow that actively preventing the vehicle behind you from keeping a safe distance to you is reckless and therefore illegal. If it's illegal to shoot someone, it should be just as illegal to try to force someone to shoot you by jumping out in front of them at the gun range. There should actually be a law that quite simply states, "It is illegal to force or attempt to force someone to break the law against their will." That would also take care of those Audi/BMW planks on the motorway who run up behind you and try to pressure you into going faster and breaking the speed limit. They're already breaking the "keep a safe distance" law, but now they can be charged with trying to force you to break the law as well.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2016 14:41:23 GMT
But normally it affects the person in back. This law prohibits pulling too close in front. Yeah, but if you're pulling in too closely in front of someone, you're not keeping a safe distance and you're also preventing the person behind you from keeping a safe distance, so you're double dumb and double dangerous. Any cop with half a brain who sees someone doing that should pull them over and have a chat with them, if you ask me. this is America. we had to SPELL IT OUT.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 14, 2016 20:11:31 GMT
this is America. we had to SPELL IT OUT. Sorry... Forgot that you live in a country where 60% of the total package weight of any newly bought consumer product is accounted for by the manual and only 5% of that manual are actual instructions on how to use the product. The other 95% are disclaimers to ensure that Manny the Moron can't sue the manufacturer when it turns out his new coffee machine doesn't take well to being used as a paint mixer.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 24, 2016 7:59:24 GMT
This HAS to go in here.
Madeupium
I cannot claim original ownership to this, because in the scientific sceptical world of those parts I inhabit, it is a definitely known phrase to "Your talking small round spherical objects again aint you?.."
As in, "Does that new product contain madeupium by any chance?.." Or "your time sheet this week has been contaminated with madeupium hasnt it?.. " "This excuse has been bought to you by the makers of Madeupium"
So if you are hearing the bull, spread the word, and use it with true sarcasm....
This whole post has been bought to you by the makers of Madeupium.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2016 14:07:40 GMT
This HAS to go in here. MadeupiumI cannot claim original ownership to this, because in the scientific sceptical world of those parts I inhabit, it is a definitely known phrase to "Your talking small round spherical objects again aint you?.." As in, "Does that new product contain madeupium by any chance?.." Or "your time sheet this week has been contaminated with madeupium hasnt it?.. " "This excuse has been bought to you by the makers of Madeupium" So if you are hearing the bull, spread the word, and use it with true sarcasm.... This whole post has been bought to you by the makers of Madeupium. a pronounciation key might be a good addition to words. I presume that is pronounced "may-DUP-i-um"?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2016 14:31:29 GMT
with that, the makers of madeupium bring you "w***"
which is used as an indication that you consider "work" to be a four-letter word. I know I've used it and it is pretty clear, but figured we should formalize it.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2016 14:06:13 GMT
Madeupium is made-up-ium, as in "You just made that up didnt you" with a "ium" on the end that sort of sounds scientific... I take your point, I should pout a phonetic pronunciation on "new" words, 'cos we all know you Yanks cant say Al-you-min-eee-yum.... it sort of comes out al-oo-minum once it crosses the pond?... Heh heh heh.. hows your tomato?.. still rhyming it wiv potato?..
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2016 14:51:59 GMT
Madeupium is made-up-ium, as in "You just made that up didnt you" with a "ium" on the end that sort of sounds scientific... I take your point, I should pout a phonetic pronunciation on "new" words, 'cos we all know you Yanks cant say Al-you-min-eee-yum.... it sort of comes out al-oo-minum once it crosses the pond?... Heh heh heh.. hows your tomato?.. still rhyming it wiv potato?.. and on that note, shouldn't it be "madeupinium" ans yes, "termater" to rhyme with "pertater" we don't follow the english tradition of changing one letter at the beginning and making the ending sound completely different. but then, in accordance with the laws of conservation of language, you have to pronounce all the fiddly bits to compensate for the phrench ignoring half the letters in their words and saying the rest through their noses.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2016 14:55:01 GMT
The laws of conservation of language state that sounds can neither be created nor destroys, but simply transition from one dialect to another.
example, for every bostoner who drives a "cah" there is a mainer who cuts wood with a "sawr"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2016 15:25:35 GMT
To be honest, we started with the actual words over here, and then had an argument over how to spell them. It wasnt a question of how to speak the written language, it was a case of how to spell a language that had been around and evolving for a millennium at least.... in its modern form anyway. Before that it was an amalgamation of lot of european languages with our own, which was based on Norse, Scandewegian, some Roman, Celt, Gaelic, Lowlands Scotts, a Germanic derivative, and a lot of phrench. Agreed, the written phrench and the spoken phrench are often different, and that may be a reason why the arguments in English written, because we sort of had a lot of their "Ideals" foisted on us, as most of our Monarchy spoked the phrence exclusively at some point. The only written language that was "official" was Latins. The written English was indeed illegal, and "heresy", because the Bible was law to be only in Latin, and for Church use. Confused?.. good, 'cos so was many of us at that point. Our written language, and laws, were in a language it was possibly illegal to know, yet if we broke that law, in another language, it was "Our fault".... And a lot of the law enforced at that time was indeed "Madeupium" by the local sheriff to suit his own taste. No wonder our laws are such a mess. And then YOU lot went and took it over the pond and put in your own accents.... Ask a bunch of people to say the same sentence with their own accents, and the Scots version will differ ny a hell of a lot from West country.. who is right?.. well, obviously the people from londinium will say THEY are right... Despite the rael name of Londinium... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londiniumthe peoples of that great city cant even spell the name right, yet tells US we ainted speaking wot wurds we use the right ways?.. g'wan wiv yer, aways hame 'n bail yer heeds. And then one of them "victorians" decided what we all needs was a way to learns the right wurds?.. I before E except after C and all that tripe, despite there being more words spelt Cei than Cie?... The wrote the rule book based on "Da propper Queens English" despite there being more people NON Queens English speaking local accents in UK than lundunites, they had to have it their way. Language is fluid, its always evolving, and if you get from this that we aint finished yet, you get the point. As soon as someone "Invents" the rule, we not only break it, but re-write it. Number of new words to enter the OED every year?... its in the dozens. Number of words considered to fall out of use every year?... about the same. Since Shakespeare, we have doubled the language.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 25, 2016 15:27:46 GMT
"Common sense" being the greatest victim every year.....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2016 15:58:57 GMT
the greatest enemy of the english language is that we absorb any other word that is convenient to us, so it is an amalgamation of ALL the languages there are.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 25, 2016 23:13:32 GMT
Ugh... The "proper English" discussion... We've been having that one around here for a while now.
Girlfriend has decided to go back to school and is taking English classes as part of her education. She's not quite as practiced as me, but she's certainly well above average as far as Danes go, so you'd think she would do pretty well in that class.
Not so.
Why?
Because her teacher is so obsessed with "the Queen's English" that most of us here wouldn't get anything above a D grade in her class. The reason is that we apparently teach foreign languages backwards in our schools over here. You're supposed to learn the grammar before you learn to speak or even understand the language and, as a teacher in a system like that, she isn't interested at all in how the language is actually spoken or written on a day-to-day basis, but in how the grammar books say it should be done in "the Queen's English". That would more or less disqualify me from passing her class before I even walk into the room, because I've opted for American English early on and - as we all know - that doesn't fly well with snobby puritans like her.
I helped Girlfriend out with one of her first homework assignments. Simple translations of everyday sentences from Danish to English. According to her teacher, I suck at the language and should never make another attempt at speaking or writing it again. Apparently, I'm a blasphemer. Not only because I spell the word that describes hue, saturation and brightness of light reflected off objects "color" as opposed to "colour", but also because I don't compulsively write "I am", "do not", "was not", "it is" and so on, but use the contractions of those words commonly accepted by any native English speaker ("I'm", "don't", "wasn't" etc).
That is wrong. I am a repulsive, Americanized individual who does not have any respect for "the Queen's English" and had I been enrolled in her class I would not be permitted to persists with such heresy. I have not been properly trained in the usage of her beloved second language and therefore should not be allowed to utilize it.
As soon as Girlfriend told me she was like that, I asked her to issue this snob a challenge: Go through the entire school year without ever handing out a text containing contractions.
Once she fails that - and she will - ask her what all those weird little apostrophes in the texts are. Just tell her you do not understand what they mean because you are and always were under the impression that the only correct way to write the English language was to spell everything out all the time. After all, that is what she has told you, is it not? If that is the case, then why are all these professional writers breaking that rule?
Don't get me wrong, I can see why it's important to know and understand which words are contracted in what way and why, but that's grade school stuff! My kid has been learning that for over a year now and he's in the 4th grade! By the time you're done with final exams in high school (US)/secondary school (UK), you should at least have a passing grade in G-level English. This is higher education B-level English, for crying out loud! It's one step away from the level that - provided you pass it with a B grade or better - grants you access to studying the language at the highest possible level at college/university!
Wouldn't it be fair to assume - maybe even require - that someone who's deemed qualified to study at that level should not only know that "don't" is a contraction of the words "do not", but also how to use that contraction properly?! Can we agree that, "You have to learn the right way before you can take the shortcuts," shouldn't be a valid argument at this level of education, because you damn well should know the right way to even be allowed into that class in the first place?!
If you ask me, it's nothing but linguistic snobbery! Some degree-carrying ponce who thinks she's better than everyone else because she's been to university and now she's an expert. The hell you are! If you're not willing to accept that there's a difference between what some puritan linguist at a university taught you and how the language is actually spoken and written in everyday use, you have no business teaching people who need to learn and use it out in the real world in jobs that actually produce something useful for the rest of humanity, you pompous, snobby [EXPLETIVE THAT RHYMES WITH "DITCH"]!!!
|
|