Change is coming!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you're

you're

you're

you're

you're

you're

YOUR implies possession. You're is a contraction of you and are as in 'If you are buying.'

Sorry, the whole you're and your thing bugs me so much.

I used to work in a porn shop and the film YOUR NASTY used to stare at me in the face. MY NASTY WHAT?!?!?!?!

Yeah as grammar gaffes go - that's a pretty bad one. Surprisingly popular though - even more than "rediculous".

[eric&gen 0]

Obama is saying if all the blacks vote for me i will throw in a bonus free coupons a bucket of KFC and a cobra 40oz woot woot. I will even give Hillary Clinton as a house maid lol.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You're cooking a meal with the ingredients of disappointment

you're

you're

you're

you're

you're

you're

YOUR implies possession. You're is a contraction of you and are as in 'If you are buying.'

Sorry, the whole you're and your thing bugs me so much.

I used to work in a porn shop and the film YOUR NASTY used to stare at me in the face. MY NASTY WHAT?!?!?!?!

You're cooking a meal with the ingredients of disappointment

Wise words.

Cooking? Spelling corrections? And finally the little caboose!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Marc Marc Marc - when will you ever learn...

The ship of fear you sail on is heading towards the island of self-delusion

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Marc Marc Marc - when will you ever learn...

The ship of fear you sail on is heading towards the island of self-delusion

Probably the first prerequisite for accusing someone of engaging in self-delusion is that one must accept that there is an objective reality, external and independent to one's self; one's beliefs or one's emotions/feelings. Without such a fundamental epistomological foundation, it is completely meaningless to accuse anyone of self-delusion, althought postmodern intellectuals do it all the time.

As they wallow in their preferred form of social subjectivism, it is perfectly "reasonable" (if that is the word) from their perspective to impute delusion to others--even if every time they do so, they effectively demonstrate the invalidity of their own philosophy. That is why it is so amusing to observe their appropriation of the term "reality-based community" -- when they don't believe in any reality except for their own emotions!

It gets excessively wearisome to constantly point out to them that there is a world that exists outside their heads and outside their emotions; and that the entire purpose of reason --which they reject in favor of feelings --is about understanding that world.

Their social subjectivism posits that our minds are disconnected from reality to begin with. How then is it possible for them to accuse anyone of "self-delusion"? One simply has a differing POV that is by their definition as real and true as anyone else's.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Very good Marc - where did you plagiarise that from?

Well written - but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty are the words used to describe it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Please put quotes in quotation marks and cite your source. Thanks.

[Jenn! 918]

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/12/some-...f-delusion.html

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Very good Marc - where did you plagiarise that from?

Well written - but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty are the words used to describe it.

I think the improper use of the word "are" here should be noted. Whats bogus is, the minutia of bringing up spelling corrections and such to avoid the subject matter at hand.

The ship of fear that I sail on is much healthier than the life raft of hope and change that some of you find yourselves floating on.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah yes - the old chestnut of intellectual elitism

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Very good Marc - where did you plagiarise that from?

Well written - but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty are the words used to describe it.

I think the improper use of the word "are" here should be noted. Whats bogus is, the minutia of bringing up spelling corrections and such to avoid the subject matter at hand.

The ship of fear that I sail on is much healthier than the life raft of hope and change that some of you find yourselves floating on.

Was my grammar incorrect there? Try as I might I can't imagine "is" (which usually refers to the singular unless I'm much mistaken) would read better than "are" in the above context. I would also point out of course, that the articulation of meaning there is pretty clear - unlike the common misuse of "your" for "you're", words which actually do have different applications.

In any case what is the subject at hand? I thought you just started this thread to blast Obama (Not for anything actually substantial of course).

And to reference your metaphor, don't you think its a little strange to suggest that "fear" is better than "hope". In fact the only halfway coherent argument you seem to be making there (though totally divorced from a real world context of course) is that the metaphorical boat you are on actually has a destination.

[Marilyn. 340]

Very good Marc - where did you plagiarise that from?

Well written - but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty are the words used to describe it.

I think the improper use of the word "are" here should be noted. Whats bogus is, the minutia of bringing up spelling corrections and such to avoid the subject matter at hand.

The ship of fear that I sail on is much healthier than the life raft of hope and change that some of you find yourselves floating on.

Was my grammar incorrect there? Try as I might I can't imagine "is" (which usually refers to the singular unless I'm much mistaken) would read better than "are" in the above context. I would also point out of course, that the articulation of meaning there is pretty clear - unlike the common misuse of "your" for "you're", words which actually do have different applications.

In any case what is the subject at hand? I thought you just started this thread to blast Obama (Not for anything actually substantial of course).

And to reference your metaphor, don't you think its a little strange to suggest that "fear" is better than "hope". In fact the only halfway coherent argument you seem to be making there (though totally divorced from a real world context of course) is that the metaphorical boat you are on actually has a destination.

but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty are the words used to describe it.

but the whole rejection of reason in favour of emotions is bogus no matter how pretty the words are used to describe it.

[Peikko 1,575]

You have reversed "the words are" to read, "how pretty are the words" . It's plural clear as day.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought about phrasing it the other way but it didn't seem to read very well.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/12/some-...f-delusion.html

Which is, of course, a highly reputable source....

You made my day Jenn