mellie928's Comments

I went to high school with David. I was a grade below him. At the time, he was a nice, somewhat shy guy. Can't say how he was after Friends fame though.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The one that drives me nuts is "With all due respect..." Because 1) it's always said in a pissy voice to 2) someone in a higher position than the speaker and 3) the next words are going to be insulting or insubordinate.

Lay-zee writing.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Before meeting me, my husband had never owned a dog and thought that they should be outdoor-only animals. He quickly learned the error of his ways. :) Our dogs slept in our bedroom, and were full-time members of our pack.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Well, as the article points out, this is about Brits complaining about American phrases that are infiltrating British English. Which isn't to say that some Americanisms aren't cringe-inducing. Some ("that'll learn ya") have lost context during the transatlantic trip. Others aren't proper American or British grammar but are part of pop culture now ("where's it at?") for better or worse. Some of it is just different names for the same thing, which is silly to complain about (trunk/boot, flashlight/torch, takeout/take away, season/series).

But really, I think it's about resentment. America produces the majority of English language movie and television entertainment which is exported around the world, so Americanisms are more likely to infiltrate another country's language than the other way around. Probably 90% or more of American and British English is the same. Focusing on the differences and letting them grow to the level of a pet peeve is... wait for it... redonculous.

At any rate, there's no stopping evolution (unless you're an anti-evolution Christian in the U.S.). We all have to grow and evolve. I'm still trying not to put two spaces after the period at the end of the sentence.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Actually, the "visitor" is another trainer and the "accident" is a planned part of the show. Notice how the official trainer rewards the sea lion afterward? Sea World in California does the same schtick, but it is pretty funny/shocking the first time you see it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Sid, I don't agree with you 100%. I don't disagree with you 100%, either :). Supply and demand theory only gets you so far. I would argue that humans, even in the aggregate, are emotional, sometimes irrational creatures. So I can't agree that simple supply and demand will win out in the end.

I can tell you're an intelligent person and it sounds like you are well-educated. So I ask you, in your family, was it simply expected that you would go to university? Was vocational education offered as an equally viable, i.e. acceptable, alternative to you either by your schools or by your family?

I ask because I'm amazed and a bit disheartened by the number of people I know who believe that a college degree is the *only* way to have a financially comfortable life. My family was no different so I recognize this bias.

In a family of professionals, it's expected that a child will get at least a college degree. For families, especially immigrant families, that do not yet have college graduates but do have ambition and hope for their kids, the goal is to have their child get a college degree. That's part and parcel of the American Dream. Our parents, wanting the best for us and having absorbed the U.S. bias toward higher education, push us to do well in school so we can get into a good college so we can get a good job.

There's a bias against professions that require a person to use their hands in addition to their brains. We're proud to announce our child is a lawyer but not necessarily proud to announce that she's a plumber. It's societal conditioning. Note the words: hope, dream, expectation, pride. None of these are rational motivations. Even the terms "white collar" and "blue collar" carry emotional/judgmental overtones in this country. One is respected; the other less so.

This country holds a college education in disproportionately high regard, disregarding the fact that some people are not wired for academic success. It doesn't mean they're not smart or capable but that school learning isn't their strength. And/or they may be good with their hands but our schools don't currently offer vocational programs that allow non-academic kids to develop their strengths. Instead, if a child doesn't excel academically, we "joke" that they'll be asking "do you want fries with that?" for a career. By not offering vocational programs, we're individually and collectively turning our backs on an entire tier of jobs that pay well and offer steady work.

Your engineers example brings up a couple issues, too. First, wages offered to U.S. engineers may be lower because businesses can find equivalently educated employees in other countries for a much lower wage. Profit, not patriotism, is a company's main motivation. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you that businesses should pay for quality if they're demanding quality.

Second, supply and demand when it comes to jobs (versus widgets) may have a many-year delay between the increase in demand and the meeting of it with supply, especially when you're dealing with professions that require advanced degrees or a steep learning curve. By the time you get your master's degree the demand may be down. Current college grads are experiencing this. The time-intensive preparation for some jobs makes it difficult to respond to demand adequately especially in a global economy where the supply can come from somewhere else and a company's or industry's needs can change almost overnight.

If we're talking about supplying plumbers, where does one get training since the U.S. largely lacks vocational programs? I know there's on-the-job training but I imagine it would be more efficient to centralize part of the training in a group setting versus individual mentoring.

I wouldn't consider it meddling for the government to offer vocational programs. Instead I believe it would open up another avenue for success for Americans, and as a bonus, they're jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Don't forget the calories, depending on what you're getting. You might get plain iced coffee which won't be calorie dense. But if I read this right, you can get any of SB's cold drinks in this size.

A grande mocha frapp is 420 calories (with whipped cream). This new monstrosity will come in at 813 calories.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
"I find that the two space break slightly helps my readability on top of the period as it is a clearer break."

This ^.

I also use two spaces and was taught on a typewriter in high school. The rationale was that you were making the break in flow more obvious (the end of one sentence and the beginning of another). This was to contrast the end of a sentence, where there should be a brief pause when reading out loud, with an abbreviated word within a sentence, e.g. St. Cloud or Mr. Rogers, where you wouldn't pause if you were reading out loud.

Of course, with texting, isn't this all a moot point? A lot people can't even spell much less punctuate these days. Comments that contain no punctuation at all and are peppered with "u" and "ur" make my brain hurt. Not that I've ever seen one of those on Neatorama. ;)

By the way, anyone notice the tone of the article was intentionally incendiary? "If you use two spaces, you're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!" Please, go solve world hunger and clean water issues. Number of spaces? Really?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Page 1 of 3       next | last

Profile for mellie928

  • Member Since 2012/08/07



  • Threads Started 37
  • Replies Posted 1
  • Likes Received 4

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More