Posts by Brent Jackson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And the first thing to do, is to stop drinking, to limit the amount of alcohol in our blood (ie CO2 in the atmosphere).
-
InternationalObserver wrote :
Jolisa, aren't I right in thinking you were ...
Am I right in thinking ...?
</evenmorepedant>Earlier this week I had exactly this same discussion with my son when he came across the word "amn't" in a sentence like "I'm right, amn't I ?". We both agreed that it should be "aren't", and I was very surprised to see the in my Concise Oxford dictionary, there were two meanings for "aren't". One is the standard contraction of "are not", and the second is the interrogative contraction of "am not".
To explain this more fully, I refer you to the Dictionary.com website (retrieved on 9-Apr-2008) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aren't
—Usage note The social unacceptability of ain't, the historical contraction of am not, has created a gap in the pattern of verbal contractions. I'm not, the alternative to I ain't, has no corresponding interrogative form except ain't I. In questions, ain't I is often avoided by the use of aren't I: I'm right, aren't I? Aren't I on the list? This aren't is simply a different outcome of the same historical development that yielded ain't, but the fact that it is spelled and pronounced like the contraction of are not (as in You are staying, aren't you?) apparently gives it, for some, an acceptability that ain't lacks. The use of aren't I is objected to by others because a declarative counterpart, I aren't, does not exist. Many speakers, however, prefer aren't I to the uncontracted, rather formal am I not.
</pendant>*</pendant>
-
Umm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't using candles and kerosene lamps for lighting be worse for the environment then the equivalent wattage of electric lighting. Kerosene and paraffin are both derived from fossil fuels ...
-
Kyle Matthews wrote :
Actually, I'd hope that there is a point at which we'd stop trading with a country because of their human rights record. If, for example, China was killing thousands of people each year, would we still trade with them? Hundreds of thousands? Clearly at some point a moral stand kicks in.
If that were the case, then surely we wouldn't still be trading with the USA.
(Instead the Govt seems to make discouraging but polite comments, and waits for their regime to change).
-
Russell blogged :
... very affluent countries such as Switzerland, Ireland and Iceland ...
I wouldn't classify Ireland as "very affluent", in fact, I don't think it even warrants an "affluent" (unless you're comparing it to the world average, rather than relative to New Zealand). It is definitely not in the same league as Switzerland !
David Haywood wrote:To all intents and purposes the definition of news journalist has now simply become: "One whose job is to retype press releases".
So instead of calling them "reporters" we should call them "retypers" ?
David Haywood also wrote:Maybe Public Address should be handing out a "Complete Fucking Bullshit" award to the worst case of bad journalism each week (of course, we might have to give it a more acceptable name...
You could be right there. According to Wikipedia's Bullshit page :
Bullshit is often considered a vulgar word, and in the U.S. and New Zealand, it must be censored from over-the-air radio broadcasts.
The "Complete Fucking Bovine Scat" award anyone ?
-
Grant McDougall wrote :
I can't wait for that American bloke to turn up with his deluded reasoning why the war has been such a raging success.
Che Tibby responded :
i say if cheney actually turns up, we take him out back and give him a thorough whaleoiling.
I think Grant was referring to James better-to-play-an-away-game-than-a-home-game Bremner rather than that Dick Cheney.
-
Tussock wrote :
By definition, evolution and gravity theories cannot be wrong, ...
In order to be science they must be able to be wrong. If it is not falsifiable then it is not science. Hence, Ben's comment is true :
'established maths' is even less disagreeable than both gravity and evolution, which are theories that could be wrong.
I don't think equivocation enters into it. Scientific theories can be wrong.
(Of course, long established, and hence, well-supported, scientific theories - like gravity and evolution - are only likely to be wrong in trivial ways ...)
-
I cry for Finn.
-
Mike Graham wrote :
I often find that some-one has already said what I would have said. Combine that with the reality of work where I try to limit my blog-reading time, the conversation has often moved on by the time the kids are in bed and I get my turn at the keyboard.
This is also very true for me.
Isabel Hitchings wrote :
... and yet I don't want to attract too much critical attention until I've got a couple of posts under my belt and had a chance to establish myself as something other than totally useless ...
Well you've achieved that with your very first post. Well done.
Stephanie wrote :
Post something tentative. Like this. The process has been a little like choking back a sneeze - aah aah - aah - choo! Even now I feel tentative - part of me wants to apologise for sneezing on you all.
Thank you ! I thoroughly enjoyed being "sneezed" on (laughing out loud is so good for you). As Russell so aptly put it (with a typical Kiwi understatement) ...
It seems like every time someone posts along these lines, it turns out that they actually write quite well ..
My wife has asked me to add that she is a lurker too. She doesn't post, because she remains emotionally attached to her comments, and gets worked up when people disagree with her (or ignore her posts). So she doesn't find the effort worth her while, and is quite happy to lurk, read and enjoy.
(Whew ... if I'd known she had that much to say, I would have registered her myself ...)
Cheers,
Brent. -
I am not sure why your post is titled "Hillary marches fourth". She appears to be a very close second at the moment.