NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/14/childrensservices.politics

I'm not British, but my experience with kids from that country matches what this article says.

A while ago I made a thread arguing that the voting age should be lower. Some people argued that they don't see how adults are abusing their power over people younger than 18. This is a good example of what I meant.

America is the 2nd worst by the way.

What do you think?

I think that to allow the existence of poverty is a crime against humanity. This should be a very clear call to action, but it will likely be ignored both in the US and UK.

Saddening certainly, however Wednesday February 14 2007 this is last years news you know? i suppose it's not too out of date yet.
Still, it would be nice if the UK was a little higher up the scales and all.
:(

This doesn't really surprise me tbh which just goes to show how bad things really are. Just consider how many teenage deaths their have been this year alone in the UK. And violence from teens, for example:

One man was beaten unconcious while his girlfriend beaten to death because they dressed as goths. The age of the people who did this, 15 and 16.

Saddening certainly, however this is last years news you know? i suppose it's not too out of date yet.
Still, it would be nice if the UK was a little higher up the scales and all.
:(I didn't notice that. I just heard about it today. I think there was an article in Time today.


One man was beaten unconcious while his girlfriend beaten to death because they dressed as goths. The age of the people who did this, 15 and 16.Yeah, there's a lot of anti goth hate over there.

I didn't notice that. I just heard about it today.

Yeah, there's a lot of anti goth hate over there.

Not really. I live here, in the UK. Sure different sub cultures spring up and these sub cultures may not like each other. In my opinion I believe the general public don't like chavs, the biggest sub culture of the lot.

I knew someone from England who said the goths and non-goths would fight over territory, which was usually just some park or something.

I knew someone from England who said the goths and non-goths would fight over territory, which was usually just some park or something.

well i know a some people who would probably do that sort of thing, but i doubt it's limited to Goths, mostly poorer children in general with a lack of things to do.

The West is arrogant to the max, in my own country of Australia the government talks about 'human rights' while our indigenous population has the lowest living conditions and life expectancy of any native population on the planet. In America it's even worst, they talk about 'freedom' while millions loose their homes and the poor are basically indentured servants to big business.

The West is arrogant to the max, in my own country of Australia the government talks about 'human rights' while our indigenous population has the lowest living conditions and life expectancy of any native population on the planet. In America it's even worst, they talk about 'freedom' while millions loose their homes and the poor are basically indentured servants to big business.

Well, you know, we do what we can. We were going for lowest living conditions, but it would seem victory (or rather, defeat) was stolen from our hands by Oz. Damn you, Ozzies! Guess we'll have to beat our indentured servants harder.

this is one time when I support Scottish succession :p

worse relationships with their parents

interesting criteria as its been observed that children will latch on parents who are neglectful whereas normal parents find abuse hurled at them

I knew someone from England who said the goths and non-goths would fight over territory, which was usually just some park or something.

I knew someone from England who said things to look tough...do you think we know the same connection?

The West is arrogant to the max, in my own country of Australia the government talks about 'human rights' while our indigenous population has the lowest living conditions and life expectancy of any native population on the planet. In America it's even worst, they talk about 'freedom' while millions loose their homes and the poor are basically indentured servants to big business.

Hey! Welcome back! I've missed you.



PS: Get out of the eighties, "to the max"? Please....

Hey! Welcome back! I've missed you.



PS: Get out of the eighties, "to the max"? Please....

Dude, that's da bomb, yo.

WOOOOOOOOOOOO

Number one! Number one! Number one!

I already know that...

well to all u americans im 14 n brittish.......
britain has a bad youth because of our weak left wing nanny state....
the way our governmet tries to punish us is wit the ASBO (anti social behaviour order) wich givs us curfues and other restrictions wen realy the offenders should by rights be lockd up.....the ASBO is seen by many as a badge of street honour amongst the chavs (main streem youth factions that think there black listen to rap n there the wons who murderd the goths)
also brittish youth is split into mainstream or allternative fashion.....
n those on the alternative eg skinheads goths punks metalheads emo scene....call the mainstreem workin class chavs n middle class trendies....
those who are chav see all those that do not fit in wit either trendie or chav as moshers..........there is much hate for they dont understand subculture....... well many in the alternative have rivalries but most dont get out of hand untill the mosh pits and thats when they take sides against eachother...... another very brittish thing is(soccer) Football hooliganism were groups of casuals (dress a mix of trendie n chav) and skinheads fight others of the same frm different towns or football clubs.........
but brittish youth groups have being at war since the 60s with the mods and rockers..............
and you frm the states may also ask if people like me can see it is wrong u may ask why do it well the ruling powers are doing nothing to stop it
and well "What else are you going to do on a weekend!!"

well to all u americans im 14 n brittish.......
britain has a bad youth because of our weak left wing nanny state....
the way our governmet tries to punish us is wit the ASBO (anti social behaviour order) wich givs us curfues and other restrictions wen realy the offenders should by rights be lockd up.....the ASBO is seen by many as a badge of street honour amongst the chavs (main streem youth factions that think there black listen to rap n there the wons who murderd the goths)
also brittish youth is split into mainstream or allternative fashion.....
n those on the alternative eg skinheads goths punks metalheads emo scene....call the mainstreem workin class chavs n middle class trendies....
those who are chav see all those that do not fit in wit either trendie or chav as moshers..........there is much hate for they dont understand subculture....... well many in the alternative have rivalries but most dont get out of hand untill the mosh pits and thats when they take sides against eachother...... another very brittish thing is(soccer) Football hooliganism were groups of casuals (dress a mix of trendie n chav) and skinheads fight others of the same frm different towns or football clubs.........
but brittish youth groups have being at war since the 60s with the mods and rockers..............
and you frm the states may also ask if people like me can see it is wrong u may ask why do it well the ruling powers are doing nothing to stop it
and well "What else are you going to do on a weekend!!"


Reading that made my head hurt.

1. Paragraphs.
2. Sentences with punctuation.
3. Its spelled "you" not "u"

Ah well. I came alright out of my childhood here, and if you disagree, you're a poofy prick.

Britain is a despicable, corrossive, socially fractured place....great, any news.

Incidentally, whoever posted that abomination of a paragraph should have there fingers crushed with a heavy dictionary.

Britain is a despicable, corrossive, socially fractured place....great, any news.


For $100 name ten countries that, given the chance, you would emigrate to rather than stay in Britain.

Reading that made my head hurt.

1. Paragraphs.
2. Sentences with punctuation.
3. Its spelled "you" not "u"

It physically hurts me. I think my vision is tunneling. Gah, I need to go take a nap or something...

For $100 name ten countries that, given the chance, you would emigrate to rather than stay in Britain.

Can I have a guarantee of the money first?

Can I have a guarantee of the money first?

Sure, but I probably should tell you that I'm only offering hypotheticalstani dollars.

Sure, but I probably should tell you that I'm only offering hypotheticalstani dollars.

Sounds fine. In fact, I quite like the idea of that as currency.

Incidentally, whoever posted that abomination of a paragraph should have there fingers crushed with a heavy dictionary.

I think you mean "their fingers crushed".

Once again, science has reported what all of us that have read Roald Dahl already knew.

I think you mean "their fingers crushed".

Yes. Well done for picking up on my conscious oversight...

I think you mean "their fingers crushed".

Technically, it should be "his or her fingers crushed"

Incidentally, whoever posted that abomination of a paragraph should have there fingers crushed with a heavy dictionary.
It reminds me of the people in Clockwork Orange. If that's true, he or she has already gone through far worse than having his or her fingers crushed.

It physically hurts me. I think my vision is tunneling. Gah, I need to go take a nap or something...

It physically hurts you? You guys are weak, maybe you need to get a bigger screen or turn the light on.

I am sorry but seriously is it really that difficult to understand? Ok maybe he should have typed 'you' instead of 'u' and we certainly didn't need all those full stops all over the place and he could have spelt correctly, but surely you could understand what he was typing.

The Netherlands tops the league, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Spain. The bottom five are Portugal, Austria, Hungary, the US and the UK.

Hungary is wealthy now?

The West is arrogant to the max, in my own country of Australia the government talks about 'human rights' while our indigenous population has the lowest living conditions and life expectancy of any native population on the planet.

We try to help them, "OH THEY'RE STEALING OUR CHILDREN!!1!". There was one town in NT where the elders REQUESTED that the govt. take the children away for their own good. :rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/14/childrensservices.politics

I'm not British, but my experience with kids from that country matches what this article says.

A while ago I made a thread arguing that the voting age should be lower. Some people argued that they don't see how adults are abusing their power over people younger than 18. This is a good example of what I meant.

America is the 2nd worst by the way.

What do you think?

And yet (neoliberal) people point out UK and US as models to follow... it's disgusting that a rich country lets its children live in poverty. Really disgusting.

Yeah, there's a lot of anti goth hate over there.


And there is not in America, and other countries, because hatred for being different is apparently reserved for the UK?


I would say hatred for anything different is worse in America, where not being number one, not being the winner in everything, not having nice white bright teeth is picked out, turned upon savagely, and efforts made by the society there to stamp it out.


This extends beyond cultures within to the world in general, as we have bluntly seen over the past few years.


What is happening in the UK is the catching of America's virus that mingles with Britain's social problems (for which governments should be put on trial) to create what America has had: Gun crime, violence and ignorance and isolation.


Picking out another country's problems is fine and needed, but it's wise to make sure your own country is not a doghole and not to ignore this before likening another country to a doghole, otherwise you start to look like someone who peers down his nose at other nations and their peoples with imperious flair.

And there is not in America, and other countries, because hatred for being different is apparently reserved for the UK?I really hate it when people on the internet do this. It doesn't happen nearly as often happen in real life. People on the internet love to make up an argument that I never argued, and then get angry about it because they've convinced myself that I really said whatever they're pretending I said. Internet people love arguing with delusions.

The point is, I never said "hatred for being different is reserved for the UK." You're using an argument that 7 year olds use. If you criticize a 7 year old, they will say "OH YEAH! WELL SO ARE YOU!" Yes, I know every country hates goths, that's not a secret. They wouldn't become goths if they weren't so obsessed with being outside the mainstream.
What is happening in the UK is the catching of America's virus that mingles with Britain's social problems (for which governments should be put on trial) to create what America has had: Gun crime, violence and ignorance and isolation.No, the UK is not catching America's virus. Just because you have a bunch of criminals who listen to American music, doesn't mean America is responsible for your crime. Britain does not try to act like America, and many British policies are the opposite of American policies. Britain is so gun-shy there is controversy about allowing the police to have guns.

The British pretend to look down many aspects of American culture, and sometimes people like you complain that American culture has invaded them. The truth is that Europeans purposefully involve themselves in American culture, they buy American movies, music, food, and clothing all the time. They even watch American politics.

Picking out another country's problems is fine and needed, but it's wise to make sure your own country is not a doghole and not to ignore this before likening another country to a doghole, otherwise you start to look like someone who peers down his nose at other nations and their peoples with imperious flair.Don't get defensive just because I pointed out how your country has failed. I'm assuming you personally had nothing to do with it, so there's no reason to get defensive about it. Just like I had nothing to do with how my country ended up. I don't see why I have to come from a wonderful place in order to have a right to criticize other places. If someone from Africa started complaining about racism in the West, would you tell them to stop whining because Africa is a doghole?

Hmm. Val-Halla skinheads. Hello puppet. Who are you really?

If you are going to try to write like a 14 year old who is poorly educated, you should not use words such as "weak left wing nanny state". The ......... are also dodgy, when combined with txt speech. A txt speech person wouldn't use that degree of redundant characters.

Also "but brittish youth groups have being at war since the 60s with the mods and rockers". A 14 year old streety who has studied the history of subculture conflict? Is that going to be the thesis title when studying for levels in prison.

At least put some effort in making a puppet. Everyone knows a puppeteer puts his hand up the backside of the puppet. The above looks like you pulled something out of a backside.

I really wouldn't say England was the worst place to bring up a kid. By the way, was it actually England or is it merely just an Americanism for Britain?

Anyways, yeah, people are shitty to each other in the UK, and the poverty is pretty damned shameful for an industrialised nation with a government that claims, or at least used to, be left wing.

But, to a point, a lot of the problems are being made to look a lot worse than they actually are by the media, a favourite tactic so that they can sell more newspapers than actually give the people of the country facts. I've personally ownly ever had trouble when out and about in both my home city and my university town twice, and one of those was entirely my own fault. Admittedly, I do tend to go out of my way to avoid certain places because of their dodgey reputation and try to avoid trouble. And if people are born into poverty there is little they can do to get out of it in a lot of circumstances.

I wasn't talking about something the media said. This is a study.

By the way, was it actually England or is it merely just an Americanism for Britain?

.

VietnamSounds the report is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not just England

I suspect Glasgow dragged the figures down somewhat :p

It pains me to say it

Nice to see people from my home town in that picture. ::rolleyes:

Britain is a despicable, corrossive, socially fractured place....great, any news.

Incidentally, whoever posted that abomination of a paragraph should have there fingers crushed with a heavy dictionary.

No we're not, we're better than the states, because we don't have an almost 50% obesity rate amongst adult men, or thousands of deaths thanks to guns a year. Also, if you're gonna correct someone on grammar, learn how to spell their.

And yet (neoliberal) people point out UK and US as models to follow

Jesus fucking christ. The UK Labour party are not neoliberal, they spend a very large proportion of their GDP on welfare and the NHS. When the article mentions poverty, it isn't actual real poverty like you experience in LEDC's, they are talking about the council housing (provided by the government) that the working class are brought up in, yes the conditions are crummy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any neoliberal policy and its pathetic that you have to use this old unreliable report to score a +1. In fact many people think that these problems are because of the opposite reasons, that it's too easy to leach off government welfare.

It physically hurts you? You guys are weak, maybe you need to get a bigger screen or turn the light on.

I am sorry but seriously is it really that difficult to understand? Ok maybe he should have typed 'you' instead of 'u' and we certainly didn't need all those full stops all over the place and he could have spelt correctly, but surely you could understand what he was typing.

Nope, but then it was painful to look at, so I didn't read it...

I think that to allow the existence of poverty is a crime against humanity. This should be a very clear call to action, but it will likely be ignored both in the US and UK.

It is a crime that cannot be stopped, people will always be poor.

Nope, but then it was painful to look at, so I didn't read it...

Fine, but I still fail to understand how it was painful to look at? Maybe you need some glasses if it is giving you a headache

It physically hurts you? You guys are weak, maybe you need to get a bigger screen or turn the light on.

I am sorry but seriously is it really that difficult to understand? Ok maybe he should have typed 'you' instead of 'u' and we certainly didn't need all those full stops all over the place and he could have spelt correctly, but surely you could understand what he was typing.

I don't bother trying to understand it. Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument. If they do, I don't care, because I'm not going to strain myself trying to beat the argument out of it.

The only excuses for bad grammar are being 6 or not knowing English. I presume he's not 6 as I doubt a 6-year-old cares about politics that much, and I doubt he's not a native speaker as the use of "u" for "you" is something of a colloquialism, among other things.

I don't bother trying to understand it. Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument. If they do, I don't care, because I'm not going to strain myself trying to beat the argument out of it.

The only excuses for bad grammar are being 6 or not knowing English. I presume he's not 6 as I doubt a 6-year-old cares about politics that much, and I doubt he's not a native speaker as the use of "u" for "you" is something of a colloquialism, among other things.

So are you saying his argument is wrong because it is not grammatically correct, I am sure that is a fallacy.

For you to say that someone is incorrect and that their argument is wrong is complete and utter crap. I know that his post isn't the same but I have seen you and other people like you go on and dismiss good and well thought out points on topics because they have missed a full stop or a comma is missing, grow up and get a life, if you don't want to argue with him/her or can't accept that they have disproved your argument or typed something that you don't agree with, then you should either ignore it or post a counter argument that shows his argument to be false.

And does it really physically hurt you? I see you forgot to answer that question

And there is not in America, and other countries, because hatred for being different is apparently reserved for the UK?


I would say hatred for anything different is worse in America, where not being number one, not being the winner in everything, not having nice white bright teeth is picked out, turned upon savagely, and efforts made by the society there to stamp it out.


This extends beyond cultures within to the world in general, as we have bluntly seen over the past few years.


What is happening in the UK is the catching of America's virus that mingles with Britain's social problems (for which governments should be put on trial) to create what America has had: Gun crime, violence and ignorance and isolation.


Picking out another country's problems is fine and needed, but it's wise to make sure your own country is not a doghole and not to ignore this before likening another country to a doghole, otherwise you start to look like someone who peers down his nose at other nations and their peoples with imperious flair.

Now who is being bigoted and selective. You're part of the America is always worst and teh ebil crowd. Hypocrite.

Fine, but I still fail to understand how it was painful to look at? Maybe you need some glasses if it is giving you a headache

Or maybe he needs to learn english so that he can present his argument in a readable form.

So are you saying his argument is wrong because it is not grammatically correct, I am sure that is a fallacy.

No, I said that a good argument cannot possibly contain that many grammatical errors, which is for starters hyperbole, and also logically valid in saying that it is less likely for a post full of grammatical errors to contain a well thought-out argument.

For you to say that someone is incorrect and that their argument is wrong is complete and utter crap.

I didn't say their argument was utter crap. I didn't say their post was utter crap either, for the record. Also for the record, the post is utter crap.

I don't know if the argument is utter crap. I haven't read it.

I know that his post isn't the same but I have seen you and other people like you go on and dismiss good and well thought out points on topics because they have missed a full stop or a comma is missing

I'm fairly certain you haven't seen me do it more than this one time. You may have, but I doubt it.

When was the last time? Meh, I dunno.

grow up and get a life, if you don't want to argue with him/her or can't accept that they have disproved your argument or typed something that you don't agree with, then you should either ignore it or post a counter argument that shows his argument to be false.

Welcome to the real world. Here people judge you on many things, including your appearance, how you dress, how you carry yourself, and most often, how you speak, all before they even care about what you're actually saying. It is a world of PR and advertising; a world where people who have majored in English are hired by companies to edit their papers; a world where your resume is graded on how it is put together before it is graded on what is in it. A world in which your use of grammar reflects how intelligent you are and how much thought and effort you have put into what you are saying.

And does it really physically hurt you? I see you forgot to answer that question

English major.

Yes it does.

And yet (neoliberal) people point out UK and US as models to follow... it's disgusting that a rich country lets its children live in poverty. Really disgusting.
Jesus Christ, Kilo...

1) It's really not all that triste over here.

2) New Labour are not at all neo-liberal. Public spending on education and healthcare, amongst other things, has gone up in their last 11-ish years in power. Going into Iraq does not make us neoliberal any more than not going into Iraq made France a land of cowardly commies.
I wasn't talking about something the media said. This is a study.
Just to point something out to you - things aren't here aren't particularly bad, and there certainly aren't running battles in the streets between the middle class and the poor all over the place.

The whole chavs/goths thing is blown wildly out of proportion by almost all of our tabloids, most of whom would like to see being poor made illegal for the good of Our Sceptered Isle.

No, I said that a good argument cannot possibly contain that many grammatical errors, which is for starters hyperbole, and also logically valid in saying that it is less likely for a post full of grammatical errors to contain a well thought-out argument.

So if a person's argument has a cogent argument with a strong premise concluding with a conclusion, but because it has some grammatical errors then his argument must be invalid. Is that correct?

I didn't say their argument was utter crap. I didn't say their post was utter crap either, for the record. Also for the record, the post is utter crap.

I don't know if the argument is utter crap. I haven't read it.

I never said you did say that it was utter crap, I said that you believing that someones argument is invalid because they was a grammatical error or they misspelled a word, then that belief is utter crap


I'm fairly certain you haven't seen me do it more than this one time. You may have, but I doubt it.

When was the last time? Meh, I dunno.

Well as I said it was you and people like you which refers to a whole group of people on this forum, and I cannot be bothered going through your past 100 posts (unfortunately that is the maximum it keeps), next time I see you do it I will let you know


Welcome to the real world. Here people judge you on many things, including your appearance, how you dress, how you carry yourself, and most often, how you speak, all before they even care about what you're actually saying. It is a world of PR and advertising; a world where people who have majored in English are hired by companies to edit their papers; a world where your resume is graded on how it is put together before it is graded on what is in it. A world in which your use of grammar reflects how intelligent you are and how much thought and effort you have put into what you are saying.

Valid point but this forum is hardly the real world, now I ask you if someone posted on here a intelligent argument that had been well thought out and backed with evidence but they left out a couple of commas then does that mean their argument is completely invalid and the person who wrote it is unintelligent?

English major.

Yes it does.

Really because you have a piece of paper it physically hurts you in some form, not mentally but physically. Maybe it frustrates you because you have had extra training then others on grammar, and I assure you not everyone is taught proper grammar then yes I can sort of see how that may 'mentally' hurt you, but please tell me how it physically hurts you?

Jesus fucking christ. The UK Labour party are not neoliberal, they spend a very large proportion of their GDP on welfare and the NHS. When the article mentions poverty, it isn't actual real poverty like you experience in LEDC's, they are talking about the council housing (provided by the government) that the working class are brought up in, yes the conditions are crummy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with any neoliberal policy and its pathetic that you have to use this old unreliable report to score a +1. In fact many people think that these problems are because of the opposite reasons, that it's too easy to leach off government welfare.


:)

Common sense spoken by Hydesland......... there is nobody starving in the UK (there is malnutrition, but that's because the cheapest food that people on welfare buy consists purely of animal by-products and fat and colourants), everyone has access to free medical care and housing if required; we do have a problem with our youth that could be sorted by a Zero Tolerance Police culture, but traditionally the Labour Party has been hugely bureaucratic and has always targeted the minority vote, so the Zero Tolerance approach can't be used in areas of Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population. Once we get the Conservative Party back into power, the Police will get wider powers to arrest young lawbreakers which will make their peer group law abiding and spend less time filling out reports to prove their adherence to targets

Or maybe he needs to learn english so that he can present his argument in a readable form.

Or maybe you just need to get over yourself and have a look at what he has posted because I assure you it is readable.

So if a person's argument has a cogent argument with a strong premise concluding with a conclusion, but because it has some grammatical errors then his argument must be invalid. Is that correct?

[...]

I never said you did say that it was utter crap, I said that you believing that someones argument is invalid because they was a grammatical error or they misspelled a word, then that belief is utter crap

I never said it was invalid. I said it was utter crap. There is a difference. Invalid means it logically does not follow. Utter crap means I don't care whether or not it logically follows, I'm not going to bother reading it.

Well as I said it was you and people like you which refers to a whole group of people on this forum, and I cannot be bothered going through your past 100 posts (unfortunately that is the maximum it keeps), next time I see you do it I will let you know


You said I specifically had. Just wanted to point out to you that I specifically have not.

For the record, I excuse minor grammatical errors, especially misuse of the comma as the vast majority of English speakers have no clue how to use the comma. A lot of English majors don't have a clue how to use a comma. Commas are really hard to use and rather ambiguous in the rules.

Valid point but this forum is hardly the real world, now I ask you if someone posted on here a intelligent argument that had been well thought out and backed with evidence but they left out a couple of commas then does that mean their argument is completely invalid and the person who wrote it is unintelligent?

Invalid, no. Unintelligent, yes. And as I previously stated, few actually know how to use a comma correctly so I usually let that one slide.

And yes, NSG is a subset of reality. As opposed to RP, grade school, personal delusions, and 4chan.

4chan is excluded from reality only as a personal preference, as I like to think that 4chan is just my imagination (or rather, someone else's imagination, as I would hate to think I thought it up).

Really because you have a piece of paper it physically hurts you in some form, not mentally but physically. Maybe it frustrates you because you have had extra training then others on grammar, and I assure you not everyone is taught proper grammar then yes I can sort of see how that may 'mentally' hurt you, but please tell me how it physically hurts you?

Stomach pains, headaches, blurred vision. Non-English majors really don't understand how that works.

Stomach pains, headaches, blurred vision. Non-English majors really don't understand how that works.
I was unaware that being a prick for no good reason was part of that course.

I knew someone from England who said the goths and non-goths would fight over territory, which was usually just some park or something.

It's more a case of the people who aren't chavs/charvers/neds/scals just avoiding the areas they know those people hang around, because if they don't, they'll get the crap beaten out of them. This is only relevant if you're about 12-17, mind.

I was unaware that being a prick for no good reason was part of that course.

You apparently have not taken higher-level English courses. That's pretty much all you do.

That, and write papers.

It's more a case of the people who aren't chavs/charvers/neds/scals just avoiding the areas they know those people hang around, because if they don't, they'll get the crap beaten out of them. This is only relevant if you're about 12-17, mind.
1) You forgot 'Kevs', which used to be the term in York at least :p

2) You're not going to get the crap kicked out of you unless you're being rude and they're very drunk. It's a non-issue for anyone who doesn't go around being a snobbish twat.

You apparently have not taken higher-level English courses. That's pretty much all you do.

That, and write papers.
Aye, well I'm doing English Language at A-level, and whilst the course is full of time-wasters who also do other, even more pisstake subjects like Sociology (yes, you can read statistics and make extremely obvious conclusions! Have an A!) or RE (it's faithtabulous!), that's not actually a module of the course just yet.

Utter crap means I don't care whether or not it logically follows, I'm not going to bother reading it.

And that is what I said was utter crap because you then go on to say "Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument." And I did say not everyone has had correct teaching in grammar, this can be due to a number of reasons including that during school it was not taught to them as it is not in the curriculum or maybe the teacher that this person had had no idea about proper grammar and so taught his/her students improper grammar.


You said I specifically had. Just wanted to point out to you that I specifically have not.

For the record, I excuse minor grammatical errors, especially misuse of the comma as the vast majority of English speakers have no clue how to use the comma. A lot of English majors don't have a clue how to use a comma. Commas are really hard to use and rather ambiguous in the rules.

I am glad that you do excuse them, but there are people on this forum who don't and attempt to rip up their argument that way, I inadvertently placed you in that group which as you say you aren't.

Invalid, no. Unintelligent, yes. And as I previously stated, few actually know how to use a comma correctly so I usually let that one slide.

Hypothetical question a someone comes along with an IQ of 169 but makes many grammatical errors within a post or a letter or whatever, does that mean that they are not intelligent?


Stomach pains, headaches, blurred vision. Non-English majors really don't understand how that works.

Well I have an economic major and when I see and hear people making idiotic suggestions and claiming some crap about economic theory or how it works when it is clearly wrong yes I get very agitated and frustrated with these people that sometimes I feel like beating some sense into them, so I understand you to a degree, but I don't get blurred vision, stomach pains or headaches. Maybe because I don't have English major but as I said in my original post you guys are weak

I think that to allow the existence of poverty is a crime against humanity. This should be a very clear call to action, but it will likely be ignored both in the US and UK.

We are the folk song army,
Every one of us cares.
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares.

There are innocuous folk songs, yeah,
But we regard 'em with scorn.
The folks who sing 'em have no social conscience,
Why, they don't even care if Jimmy Crack Corn.

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

The tune don't have to be clever,
And it don't matter if you put a couple extra syllables into a line.
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme... (excuse me: rhyne!)

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind where each of us belongs.
Though he may have won all the battles,
We had all the good songs!

So join in the folk song army!
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready, aim, sing!

-Tom Lehrer

:)

Common sense spoken by Hydesland......... there is nobody starving in the UK (there is malnutrition, but that's because the cheapest food that people on welfare buy consists purely of animal by-products and fat and colourants), everyone has access to free medical care and housing if required; we do have a problem with our youth that could be sorted by a Zero Tolerance Police culture,
but traditionally the Labour Party has been hugely bureaucratic and has always targeted the minority vote, so the Zero Tolerance approach can't be used in areas of Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population.
Once we get the Conservative Party back into power, the Police will get wider powers to arrest young lawbreakers which will make their peer group law abiding and spend less time filling out reports to prove their adherence to targets

You got a source for that? (see bolded part)

"Zero tolerance police culture", and what would this involve?

You say a zero tolerance police culture would reduce youth related crime, then you say it can't reduce crime in Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population. This is a contradiction in terms, care to elaborate on what you mean?
If a zero tolerance approach would work, why wouldn't it work on ethnic minorities? This is because zero tolerance approach wouldn't work, as you realised when dealing with other ethnic groups.
(see second boled part)

"Will make their peer group law abiding" how do you justify this statement?
Also you have a hidden premise.
P1) Conservative party gains power.
(hidden premise, the Conservative party will give police wider powers)
P2) Police will get wider powers to arrest young law breakers.
C) There will be less crime under a Conservative government

Please give a good source for your statements that zero tolerance police powers will reduce crime, and a definition of zero tolerance.
Please confirm why you think the Conservative party will help the police.

Not really. I live here, in the UK. Sure different sub cultures spring up and these sub cultures may not like each other. In my opinion I believe the general public don't like chavs, the biggest sub culture of the lot.

I second that, we seem to hate chavs, while goth are seen as a phase thoug a lot of chav seem to hate goth and emos

No we're not, we're better than the states, because we don't have an almost 50% obesity rate amongst adult men, or thousands of deaths thanks to guns a year. Also, if you're gonna correct someone on grammar, learn how to spell their.How do you know what the obesity rate in your country is? Last time I checked no European countries kept statistics about obesity. Maybe they do now, if so please enlighten me.

Also, last time I checked, the UK had a higher crime rate than the US, even if the murder rate isn't as high. Also, I remember a study done in 2002 showing that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures.

I created this thread because I think it's interesting that some countries behave very differently than other countries, even when they are both given the same resources. People should think about why thing end up badly, and what can be done to fix it. Instead, most of the posts in this thread have either been complaints about grammar, or defensive "things aren't all bad (at least compared to your stupid country)" posts. It's not good to perpetuating the snobby British stereotype.

How do you know what the obesity rate in your country is? Last time I checked no European countries kept statistics about obesity. Maybe they do now, if so please enlighten me.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15655034

As of 2005, it was about a quarter of both adult men and women.
Also, last time I checked, the UK had a higher crime rate than the US, even if the murder rate isn't as high. Also, I remember a study done in 2002 showing that 11 million crimes had been left out of British government figures.
2006 - USA - 3,808 crimes per 100,000 residents. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

UK - April 2005 - March 2006 - 2577.5 crimes per 100,000 residents (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk)

well to all u americans im 14 n brittish.......
britain has a bad youth because of our weak left wing nanny state....
the way our governmet tries to punish us is wit the ASBO (anti social behaviour order) wich givs us curfues and other restrictions wen realy the offenders should by rights be lockd up.....the ASBO is seen by many as a badge of street honour amongst the chavs (main streem youth factions that think there black listen to rap n there the wons who murderd the goths)
also brittish youth is split into mainstream or allternative fashion.....
n those on the alternative eg skinheads goths punks metalheads emo scene....call the mainstreem workin class chavs n middle class trendies....
those who are chav see all those that do not fit in wit either trendie or chav as moshers..........there is much hate for they dont understand subculture....... well many in the alternative have rivalries but most dont get out of hand untill the mosh pits and thats when they take sides against eachother...... another very brittish thing is(soccer) Football hooliganism were groups of casuals (dress a mix of trendie n chav) and skinheads fight others of the same frm different towns or football clubs.........
but brittish youth groups have being at war since the 60s with the mods and rockers..............
and you frm the states may also ask if people like me can see it is wrong u may ask why do it well the ruling powers are doing nothing to stop it
and well "What else are you going to do on a weekend!!"

Fuck, i play fast and loose with spelling, grammar and generally butcher the written word but that take the biscuit. :p

O.k i just going clarify what you saying it if that fine?
your first point isa that the reason children are out of control in U.K is due to the weak labor government, and you use the asbo orders as your evidence.
your second point seem to be saying that British youth is largely fragmented in two different sub-cultures that do not except each other.
your third point seem to be that violence is part of British culture, in which you use football hooliganism (sorry but i refuse to call it soccer) and historic British youth group such as mods and rockers.
you then as the Americans to answer a few questions.
1)Can youths see there doing wrong
2)Why don't the government do anything about it
3)What else you going to on the weekend.

So now if i got these wrong let me know. Now on your first point i partially agree, The government keep putting in inefficient methods to stop crime when
merely increasing the powers of the police and making jail more unpleasant would work one hundred times as well.
On your second point, while i agree that British youth is fragmented i disagree that the large majority of each people within each sub-culture except each other, and it only the minority that don't. But that true in any two group that are fundamentally different (look at Christians, most get on with atheist but a few go to far and attack the atheist, and other course the reverse is true.)
Oh and i must say that mosh's pit are fun and rarely a form to attack people even emo's (scum :p)
Now your third point, it saddly true for all cultures, they all start with violence
and it stay within the culture under the surface, if it the blatant war mongering of the Americans (sorry) to the violence within the youth culture of Briton.
As for your 3 question (i english but i try to answer them anyway)
1) That up for there parents to install into them, and if there parents fail then the state must step in and take this and any other child the parent might be failing.
2)The government tries but it just to inefficient, we may have to wait until a goverment is willing to be stronger om the children of our great nation

hope i been of some help
Gothicbob

(prob should read the rest of this thread now)

And that is what I said was utter crap because you then go on to say "Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument."

You apparently have never heard of hyperbole.

And I did say not everyone has had correct teaching in grammar, this can be due to a number of reasons including that during school it was not taught to them as it is not in the curriculum or maybe the teacher that this person had had no idea about proper grammar and so taught his/her students improper grammar.

Go yell at his teacher. Not my problem.

I am glad that you do excuse them, but there are people on this forum who don't and attempt to rip up their argument that way, I inadvertently placed you in that group which as you say you aren't.

Well that will teach you inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it.


Hypothetical question a someone comes along with an IQ of 169 but makes many grammatical errors within a post or a letter or whatever, does that mean that they are not intelligent?

They will be perceived by me to be unintelligent. And perception is all that matters. If it is obvious that they are, in fact, very intelligent then I will assume they are either Rain Man or foreign, both of which are acceptable excuses. If they are neither I don't care because they are that intelligent but have neglected to bother learning their native language well enough to speak to someone intelligently.


Well I have an economic major and when I see and hear people making idiotic suggestions and claiming some crap about economic theory or how it works when it is clearly wrong yes I get very agitated and frustrated with these people that sometimes I feel like beating some sense into them, so I understand you to a degree, but I don't get blurred vision, stomach pains or headaches.

Words are more important than numbers.

Maybe because I don't have English major but as I said in my original post you guys are weak

Weak my ass. No one can actually read The Sound and the Fury, The Sun Also Rises, The Great Gatsby, and A Tale of Two Cities, and actually think about them hard enough to analyze them and be weak. I'd like to see you muscle through Obasan or Ceremony.

Britain is a despicable, corrossive, socially fractured place....great, any news.

Incidentally, whoever posted that abomination of a paragraph should have there fingers crushed with a heavy dictionary.
understand the paragraph writer, then educate him. don't condemn him. For the say the dump will inherit the earth and do you really want him to be pissed off at you when he in charged:p

Oh and Great Britain great cos it in the name

They wouldn't become goths if they weren't so obsessed with being outside the mainstream.

Now that a overly simplistic view on why people become goth, it nothing to do with liking the music, peer pressure or they just look good in black. It rarely has anything to do with being outside the mainstream. I was a goth and it was a way i show my music taste when i was young, and while i would not call myself a goth now i still wear mainly black with long dark hair and pale skin. And i still like the music.

1) You forgot 'Kevs', which used to be the term in York at least :p

I remember kev, thought it was just a term down in Plymouth nice to know it was around elsewhere

No we're not, we're better than the states, because we don't have an almost 50% obesity rate amongst adult men, or thousands of deaths thanks to guns a year. Also, if you're gonna correct someone on grammar, learn how to spell their.

Firstly, I can't help but note the irony in your correcting grammar whilst using the term "gonna". Terribly sophisticated.

Secondly, having already addressed my little slip up, surely could you not have bothered to read the few pages of thread before this?

Thirdly, we truly are. Britain is simply dreadful. The population at large are at once thoroughly disaffected and disenfranchised, and fearful of a prevailing youth culture that values mindless violence, theft and criminality above anything more profitable. I can appreciate youth culture has been much criticised previously, however, I would imagine only chav could inspire 15 and 16 year olds to beat a young lady to death simply for being a goth.

Firstly, I can't help but note the irony in your correcting grammar whilst using the term "gonna". Terribly sophisticated.

Secondly, having already addressed my little slip up, surely could you not have bothered to read the few pages of thread before this?

Thirdly, we truly are. Britain is simply dreadful. The population at large are at once thoroughly disaffected and disenfranchised, and fearful of a prevailing youth culture that values mindless violence, theft and criminality above anything more profitable. I can appreciate youth culture has been much criticised previously, however, I would imagine only chav could inspire 15 and 16 year olds to beat a young lady to death simply for being a goth.

Jesus and I had always wanted to move to Britian thinking it was better.

Guess that whole grass is always greener phrase really applies here huh...

Jesus and I had always wanted to move to Britian thinking it was better.

Guess that whole grass is always greener phrase really applies here huh...
He's a prick about this kind of thing, it's a damned sight better than the US. On the other hand, the chumliness between the UK and US is about to end, so meh.

Jesus and I had always wanted to move to Britian thinking it was better.

Guess that whole grass is always greener phrase really applies here huh...

dude it not as bad as the young Chris let on! there problem but it not as bad as it seem, i in a little city of Plymouth, and i can safely say i never been mugged, or in any real fight except drunken one that are partly my fault. Come join us!:cool:

I lived in England from 93- 99 (ages 3 to 9) before I moved to Canada just to give you a quick background. There were three major things I noticed

1. (Academic) streaming from a young age. A really young age, much more than I have seen in Canada. For example, different coloured tables for the dumbest kids, below-but-approaching-average kids, slightly above average kids and the smart kids in class 2 (senor kindergarten for Americans/Canadians) .

I don't know if that was just my school or what, but I remember it being a huge blow to the self-esteem of the dumber kids. I was actually a the stupid kid table, but when I moved to Canada I was ahead of the class, by a lot. And I stayed there and now in all of my high school courses I'm above average and in all except for math I end up have the 3rd highest mark in my class.

What I'm trying to say with this point is that they dismiss kids as being stupid to easily. I doubt I would have had the chance to "get ahead" in England after that because of self confidence issues and just the way the teachers/students categorized me as stupid. I think that they put kids who take longer to mature into a certain category that maybe could explain all the stupid sub-cultures. They eventually became smarter but couldn't break out of that mold so they embraced the stupidity and became chavs, or whatever other movement they have there now.

2. Also the attitudes toward poverty, in Canada (even in Alberta) there is a lot more attention to poverty and a "this is wrong" attitude (unless it involves aboriginals which, unfortunately the majority of Canadians seem not to care about) which I don't remember there being in England. Although, I was young when I left so you might want to ignore this.

3. .... I defiantly had a 3, I forget now. I'll edit later.

1. (Academic) streaming from a young age. A really young age, much more than I have seen in Canada.
i don't think this happen everywhere, and your school seem an extreme example,i seen school that stream but none where they active sergerate the kids


What I'm trying to say with this point is that they dismiss kids as being stupid to easily. I doubt I would have had the chance to "get ahead" in England after that because of self confidence issues and just the way the teachers/students categorized me as stupid. I think that they put kids who take longer to mature into a certain category that maybe could explain all the stupid sub-cultures.
I went to two secondary schools and in the first you right i was branded stupid but in the second they took time to discover i was not and i found out i was disslexic (and an I/Q in the 91st percentile)



2. Also the attitudes toward poverty, in Canada (even in Alberta) there is a lot more attention to poverty and a "this is wrong" attitude (unless it involves aboriginals which, unfortunately the majority of Canadians seem not to care about) which I don't remember there being in England. Although, I was young when I left so you might want to ignore this.

there Still a small problem with this, people are very judgmental over here

You got a source for that? (see bolded part)

"Zero tolerance police culture", and what would this involve?

You say a zero tolerance police culture would reduce youth related crime, then you say it can't reduce crime in Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population. This is a contradiction in terms, care to elaborate on what you mean?
If a zero tolerance approach would work, why wouldn't it work on ethnic minorities? This is because zero tolerance approach wouldn't work, as you realised when dealing with other ethnic groups.
(see second boled part)

"Will make their peer group law abiding" how do you justify this statement?
Also you have a hidden premise.
P1) Conservative party gains power.
(hidden premise, the Conservative party will give police wider powers)
P2) Police will get wider powers to arrest young law breakers.
C) There will be less crime under a Conservative government

Please give a good source for your statements that zero tolerance police powers will reduce crime, and a definition of zero tolerance.
Please confirm why you think the Conservative party will help the police.


Mad hatters in jeans;13565996]You got a source for that? (see bolded part)
Yes, I'm British, I move extensively round the country and I have eyes. I also lived in Biafra during the 1967 War, where I got to see lots of dying starving people, so I know what to look for

"Zero tolerance police culture", and what would this involve?
It would involve enforcing the law, by arresting and prosecuting vandals, thieves, muggers, drug users, public drinkers and people in breach of ASBO

You say a zero tolerance police culture would reduce youth related crime, then you say it can't reduce crime in Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population. This is a contradiction in terms, care to elaborate on what you mean?

Not what I said; I said
"but traditionally the Labour Party has been hugely bureaucratic and has always targeted the minority vote, so the Zero Tolerance approach can't be used in areas of Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean population." The Labour Party is the Party currently in power; it will not allow Zero Tolerance Policing in areas where it perceives it can win votes, which is in the inner-city areas with a higher percentage of Indian/Pakistani or Afro-Caribbean residents.


If a zero tolerance approach would work, why wouldn't it work on ethnic minorities? This is because zero tolerance approach wouldn't work, as you realised when dealing with other ethnic groups.
(see second boled part)

You are wrong. We did have a successful Zero Tolerance culture throughout the 80's (the Conservative Party came to power in 1979) which did work well on the entire population, however the decline of the party at the end of the 80's meant that their overwhelming majority in Parliament was weakened, so they began to look for votes from outside of their traditional white middle class supporters. Part of the price they paid for this was that the Police could no longer stop and search Black youths for weapons or drugs on the street because the Politicians held it to be racist.


"Will make their peer group law abiding" how do you justify this statement?

Because they will be able to appreciate the consequences of not being law abiding, i.e. judicial punishment


Also you have a hidden premise.
P1) Conservative party gains power.
(hidden premise, the Conservative party will give police wider powers)
P2) Police will get wider powers to arrest young law breakers.
C) There will be less crime under a Conservative government

You are being a pedant, I can’t be bothered with you


Please give a good source for your statements that zero tolerance police powers will reduce crime, and a definition of zero tolerance.

Why? Don’t you know?


Please confirm why you think the Conservative party will help the police

Because that’s what they do – and have always done in the past, and why people will vote for them in the future – they are a right wing party and their party manifesto is founded on law and order issues

Yes, I'm British, I move extensively round the country and I have eyes. I also lived in Biafra during the 1967 War, where I got to see lots of dying starving people, so I know what to look for

You are wrong. We did have a successful Zero Tolerance culture throughout the 80's (the Conservative Party came to power in 1979) which did work well on the entire population, however the decline of the party at the end of the 80's meant that their overwhelming majority in Parliament was weakened, so they began to look for votes from outside of their traditional white middle class supporters. Part of the price they paid for this was that the Police could no longer stop and search Black youths for weapons or drugs on the street because the Politicians held it to be racist.

Because they will be able to appreciate the consequences of not being law abiding, i.e. judicial punishment


I just wanted to know exactly what you thought Zero tolerance was, and why it does not work all the time, it is not a cure all drug for all criminals. There are other more complex reasons why crimes are committed.

(See first bolded part)
I would hesitate before saying the Conservatve policy in the 1980s in Zero tolerance worked well. Miner strikes are a good example of Conservatives failing to talk to it's people.

(See second bolded part)
You place to high a value in our justice system on solving crime, in fact if someone has been to prison they are more likely to re-offend than if they hadn't been to prison at all. Prisons are really get together places for people with extensive knowledge of crime, forced against their will.
What do you think they would do if they live in poor conditions? suddenly have a change of heart and be a nice law-abiding citizen? or learn to be even better at committing a crime?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/14/childrensservices.politics

I'm not British, but my experience with kids from that country matches what this article says.

A while ago I made a thread arguing that the voting age should be lower. Some people argued that they don't see how adults are abusing their power over people younger than 18. This is a good example of what I meant.

America is the 2nd worst by the way.

What do you think?
There are a lot of baseless value judgements in that study. So what if 40% of Brits have sex before they're 15?

Also, are they using a relative measure of poverty, or an absolute measure of poverty.

You apparently have never heard of hyperbole.

Oh no I know what a deliberate exaggeration is my friend, but perhaps you can explain to me how it is a hyperbole WTF?

Go yell at his teacher. Not my problem.

Did I ever say it was your problem, all I am saying is that you should take into consideration that not everybody here has an English major and may make grammatical errors from time to time, and maybe you should have a read of their posts rather than dismiss it because you see that it is not grammatically correct.

Well that will teach you too inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it.

FIXED


They will be perceived by me to be unintelligent. And perception is all that matters. If it is obvious that they are, in fact, very intelligent then I will assume they are either Rain Man or foreign, both of which are acceptable excuses. If they are neither I don't care because they are that intelligent but have neglected to bother learning their native language well enough to speak to someone intelligently.

Well I perceive you as a snob and someone who thinks they are better than everyone else because they have an English major and refuses to change their viewpoint because they have this piece of paper. As you say perception is all that matters. And as I have said before maybe they were taught grammar incorrectly that does not make them any less intelligent they could be well read and have read up a lot on the topic they are discussing, but you dismiss them as unintelligent and that their points are moot because they do not know grammar 100%. As I said that is utter crap and a fallacy I believe

Words are more important than numbers.

If you say so but economics is more than just numbers in fact in my three years at university I only had two courses that completely involved numbers. It is interesting to see that because you have a piece of paper you see yourself as some huge important guy that knows everything about anything. You are a arts student mate get the fuck out of here

Weak my ass. No one can actually read The Sound and the Fury, The Sun Also Rises, The Great Gatsby, and A Tale of Two Cities, and actually think about them hard enough to analyze them and be weak. I'd like to see you muscle through Obasan or Ceremony.

Weak as in physically weak as in you are physically hurt when you see someone has typed a post with numerous grammatical error and as you say you get headaches and blurred vision, that my friend is pretty weak. By Ceremony I am assuming that you mean the book by Robert Parker? no I have not read it but I am sure I could and come up with a comprehensive analysis of the book or any of the books you have mentioned, indeed I have read The Great Gatsby and did analyse it. But as I said I was referring to you being physically weak which has very little to do with mentally weak. I do not give a rates arse if you can read say Othello and analyse it from a feminist or Marxist viewpoint, it still doesnt change the fact that you cannot read a simple post because they are some grammatical errors

1) You forgot 'Kevs', which used to be the term in York at least :p

2) You're not going to get the crap kicked out of you unless you're being rude and they're very drunk. It's a non-issue for anyone who doesn't go around being a snobbish twat.

The last point really isn't true, unless dressing in anything other than chav attire qualifies as being a "snobbish twat".

Oh no I know what a deliberate exaggeration is my friend, but perhaps you can explain to me how it is a hyperbole WTF?
Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument.

Hyperbole.

I am not your friend, as I would not invite you to my birthday party. And that is how you determine your friends.

Did I ever say it was your problem, all I am saying is that you should take into consideration that not everybody here has an English major and may make grammatical errors from time to time, and maybe you should have a read of their posts rather than dismiss it because you see that it is not grammatically correct.

"Not my problem" should be read as "I'm not going to bother with it."

I do take into account that not everyone is an English major. You don't have to be an English major to know how capitalization and punctuation (with the possible exception of the comma...commas are weird) work. At the very least, "u" for "you" is rather obviously incorrect grammar. I'm not expecting English major level grammar. I'm expecting English speaker level grammar.


FIXED

No.

"Well that will teach you also inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

I fail to see how that is grammatically correct.

What I should have said was "...teach you to inadvertently..." Which means that I do make mistakes - not something I like to admit.

I'd like to think I've made up for the mistake by proving that I do, in fact, know how to fix that mistake, and that it was an honest mistake rather than carelessness. And I'd like to think you've proven nothing as you not only failed to correct my mistake, but made it worse.

Well I perceive you as a snob and someone who thinks they are better than everyone else because they have an English major and refuses to change their viewpoint because they have this piece of paper.

I'm actually ok with this.

As you say perception is all that matters. And as I have said before maybe they were taught grammar incorrectly that does not make them any less intelligent they could be well read and have read up a lot on the topic they are discussing, but you dismiss them as unintelligent and that their points are moot because they do not know grammar 100%. As I said that is utter crap and a fallacy I believe

You forgot a period on the end there.

I never said their points are moot. I said I don't care what their points are. There is a difference. The former means that if I read their argument, I will find it to be logically unsound. The latter means that I don't care if their argument is logically sound or not.

If you say so but economics is more than just numbers in fact in my three years at university I only had two courses that completely involved numbers. It is interesting to see that because you have a piece of paper you see yourself as some huge important guy that knows everything about anything.

First off, I never said I know everything about anything, but I presume that is hyperbole.

Secondly, being an English major doesn't mean I know everything about anything. It means I know something about everything.

Thirdly, I do know everything about anything. Because I'm awesome like that.

You are an arts student, mate. Get the fuck out of here.

Liberal arts, thank you. An important distinction, as I can actually get a job as an English major.

And you, sir or madam, are a grammatical imbecile. I submit that you should get the fuck out of here.

Weak as in physically weak as in you are physically hurt when you see someone has typed a post with numerous grammatical error and as you say you get headaches and blurred vision, that my friend is pretty weak. By Ceremony I am assuming that you mean the book by Robert Parker? no I have not read it but I am sure I could and come up with a comprehensive analysis of the book or any of the books you have mentioned, indeed I have read The Great Gatsby and did analyse it. But as I said I was referring to you being physically weak which has very little to do with mentally weak. I do not give a rates arse if you can read say Othello and analyse it from a feminist or Marxist viewpoint, it still doesnt change the fact that you cannot read a simple post because they are some grammatical errors

You seem to be under the impression that The Sound and the Fury doesn't cause people physical pain.

Stream of consciousness from the point of view of retarded man who has the mental capacity of a three year old. Faulkner had it color-coded according to which of four time periods he was thinking about. The publishers rejected that idea.

And I never said I couldn't read it. I said I choose not to.

Oh, and it's a different Ceremony. Leslie Marmon Silko. It's all about how much being a Native American sucks. Also, he kills some people. It's not good.

I just wanted to know exactly what you thought Zero tolerance was, and why it does not work all the time, it is not a cure all drug for all criminals. There are other more complex reasons why crimes are committed.

Zero Tolerance is the unflinching application of the law for each and every infraction. If pursued with commitment, it always works; its not rocket science, you simply ratchet up the penalties until you find the one that works, killing them if that is what is necessary. Criminals have a choice to commit crime or not commit crime.


(See first bolded part)
I would hesitate before saying the Conservatve policy in the 1980s in Zero tolerance worked well. Miner strikes are a good example of Conservatives failing to talk to it's people.

The Miner’s strike had nothing whatever to do with youth crime, which is what this is about. It was Margaret Thatcher’s other War on Terror, the first being the American-financed IRA. The National Union of Miners was high jacked by a Trotskyite delusionist and due to the setup of the voting system in the union he was able to bring the miners out, and the situation then ran away from both parties and gained a momentum of its own


(See second bolded part)
You place to high a value in our justice system on solving crime, in fact if someone has been to prison they are more likely to re-offend than if they hadn't been to prison at all. Prisons are really get together places for people with extensive knowledge of crime, forced against their will.
What do you think they would do if they live in poor conditions? suddenly have a change of heart and be a nice law-abiding citizen? or learn to be even better at committing a crime?

Our justice system doesn’t solve crime; there are 2 approaches – retrain people while observing their civil rights (currently not working, anywhere, unless you know different), or stopping them from committing crime by making the consequences more frightening than any perceived benefit. Criminals will never be “nice law abiding citizens”, they are vermin and parasites, but they can be controlled if enough force is used, particularly if the degree of force is governed by the amount necessary to achieve the result, rather than any notions of fairness – they have no rights, they are a disease to be eradicated.

Hyperbole.

I am not your friend, as I would not invite you to my birthday party. And that is how you determine your friends.

I am sorry mate but you are still confusing me, I thought that I had made a mistake and my understanding of the word was wrong, so I consulted a dictionary and this is the definition that it gave me

Hyperbole: noun. A deliberate exaggeration of speech or writing used for effect, such as he embraced her a thousand times [Greek huper over + ballein to throw]

Please explain your above statement to me and how it is a hyperbole

"Not my problem" should be read as "I'm not going to bother with it."

I do take into account that not everyone is an English major. You don't have to be an English major to know how capitalization and punctuation (with the possible exception of the comma...commas are weird) work. At the very least, "u" for "you" is rather obviously incorrect grammar. I'm not expecting English major level grammar. I'm expecting English speaker level grammar.

Then you should say what you mean. Now I know that 'u' is incorrect grammar as you say but as this forum is hardly a professional forum then surely incorrect colloquialisms should be accepted in this forum.


No.

"Well that will teach you also inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

I fail to see how that is grammatically correct.

What I should have said was "...teach you to inadvertently..." Which means that I do make mistakes - not something I like to admit.

I'd like to think I've made up for the mistake by proving that I do, in fact, know how to fix that mistake, and that it was an honest mistake rather than carelessness. And I'd like to think you've proven nothing as you not only failed to correct my mistake, but made it worse.

In regards to the first sentence which you typed that is not what I posted so either you made another mistake or deliberately attempted to misrepresent me. What I wrote was "Well that will teach you too inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

And I see that I made a mistake also I meant to write 'to' but mistyped it as "too". So I did correct your mistake but made a typo and not made it worse as you suggest

I'm actually ok with this.

I know you are mate as I have had to work with some people like you.

You forgot a period on the end there.

I never said their points are moot. I said I don't care what their points are. There is a difference. The former means that if I read their argument, I will find it to be logically unsound. The latter means that I don't care if their argument is logically sound or not.

Yes I did make another mistake.

I know you don't care which was my original point, you dismiss the argument because there are a few grammatical errors, and as I said I think that the way of thought is utter crap.

First off, I never said I know everything about anything, but I presume that is hyperbole.

Yes it is, there we go that was indeed hyperbole

Secondly, being an English major doesn't mean I know everything about anything. It means I know something about everything.

At least you think you do.

Liberal arts, thank you. An important distinction, as I can actually get a job as an English major.

And you, sir or madam, are a grammatical imbecile. I submit that you should get the fuck out of here.

Good for you mate. I have never said that I am a expert on grammar and during the rush of typing I may have missed a key here or there or I may have not have know that is where a comma or other punctuation mark belongs.

I apologise if that caused you physical pain

You seem to be under the impression that The Sound and the Fury doesn't cause people physical pain.

Having never read the book I do not know, but I was asking how the hell do you suffer from physical pain from the post in this thread that you said just reading it causes you physical pain. And that is what I was referring you when calling you as weak

And yes I do understand a bit about the the "pain" you have felt while reading such books as Sound of Fury, I read a book once called Blacktown written by Australian Champion boxer Shane Weaver he describes his childhood in the first few chapters, I won't go into details but it involved his drunk stepfather coming home every night and how this man would bash and rape his mother every night to the extent that she could hardly see due to the swelling of her eyes amongst other injuries, how he would take the brunt of his step fathers rage and get beaten to protect his brothers, and how he was forced to watch his mother raped at times and even his younger brother once. And yes I felt mental pain as my mind struggled to come to terms at how he lived his childhood (as well as the rest of his troubled life) and what it may have been like, but I never felt physical pain as you claim to have such as blurred vision and headaches.

Oh, and it's a different Ceremony. Leslie Marmon Silko. It's all about how much being a Native American sucks. Also, he kills some people. It's not good.

Thanks for informing me, you didn't have to be so sarcastic about it i only mentioned the author who wrote a book called Ceremony, you should have been more specific

Liberal arts, thank you. An important distinction, as I can actually get a job as an English major.HAhaha. You think you're more likely to get a job as an English major than an art major? I don't know what kind of career you want but I know that journalism has been suffering lately, and books are increasingly less popular. Did you notice that someone has to design the cover of every book you read and illustrate articles? Those people went to art school. Everything you own was designed by somebody who probably went to art school.

There are a lot of baseless value judgements in that study. So what if 40% of Brits have sex before they're 15?

Also, are they using a relative measure of poverty, or an absolute measure of poverty.Yes, now that I look at it again I see what you mean.

It's pretty difficult to compare the quality of life in countries that all have a lot of money. Most people simply assume the country they were born into is the best, but that seems improbable.

Treadworth
Zero Tolerance is the unflinching application of the law for each and every infraction. If pursued with commitment, it always works; its not rocket science, you simply ratchet up the penalties until you find the one that works, killing them if that is what is necessary. Criminals have a choice to commit crime or not commit crime.
No and No, if you look at Zero Tolerance used in the past it only gave more reason for the population to rebel against the government. Look at the riots in Burma or Tibet, Zero Tolerance used there and it shows the frankly oppressive regimes set up.
Not all criminals have a choice, not all of them have the same opportunities as everyone else.

The Miner’s strike had nothing whatever to do with youth crime, which is what this is about. It was Margaret Thatcher’s other War on Terror, the first being the American-financed IRA. The National Union of Miners was high jacked by a Trotskyite delusionist and due to the setup of the voting system in the union he was able to bring the miners out, and the situation then ran away from both parties and gained a momentum of its own
okay...


Our justice system doesn’t solve crime; there are 2 approaches – retrain people while observing their civil rights (currently not working, anywhere, unless you know different), or stopping them from committing crime by making the consequences more frightening than any perceived benefit.
Criminals will never be “nice law abiding citizens”, they are vermin and parasites, but they can be controlled if enough force is used, particularly if the degree of force is governed by the amount necessary to achieve the result, rather than any notions of fairness – they have no rights, they are a disease to be eradicated.

No some of them are human, like you and me they have basic human rights.
Disease to be eradicated? now i know you're just being silly.
What happens if someone is framed and is injustly incarcerated, or if the person actually wants to make a difference? Should there not still be a degree of care given to them, if they are a disease should they not still be treated?
What about people with real diseases, you don't just kill them off because they are a danger to other people, they are helped and assisted as much as possible.

I am sorry mate but you are still confusing me, I thought that I had made a mistake and my understanding of the word was wrong, so I consulted a dictionary and this is the definition that it gave me


Hyperbole: noun. A deliberate exaggeration of speech or writing used for effect, such as he embraced her a thousand times [Greek huper over + ballein to throw]

Please explain your above statement to me and how it is a hyperbole

That it is not possible at all for a post with flagrant grammatical errors to have any argument of merit was hyperbole on my part, meaning yes, it is entirely possible for such a post to be intelligent, but it is very unlikely. How is it that this had to be spelled out for you?

Also, you're missing a colon and a period.

Then you should say what you mean.

I did say what I meant. It isn't my problem. I don't particularly care about things that are not my problem. And you apparently do not understand the common usage for the phrase "not my problem." I suppose I could call it slang or colloquialism, but in the end, I don't think I've ever encountered someone who said "That's not my problem, but I'm very interested in it!" Context alone should have provided you with enough to know what I meant.

Now I know that 'u' is incorrect grammar as you say but as this forum is hardly a professional forum then surely incorrect colloquialisms should be accepted in this forum.

That is a part of the whole problem. As I said, I excuse minor grammatical errors. A post using "u" for "you" or a post that doesn't capitalize properly, or a post that doesn't use punctuation correctly - any one of these is something I don't mind seeing occasionally, especially on NSG. But all of the above in one post, and probably more errors that I don't know about because I didn't bother reading it that closely - that is something I am not going to overlook. It is ok to have a mistake or two.

That post was not full of mistakes. That post was full of utter carelessness.

Also, you're missing some commas.

In regards to the first sentence which you typed that is not what I posted so either you made another mistake or deliberately attempted to misrepresent me. What I wrote was "Well that will teach you too inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

"Too" is another word for "also."

The other option is "That will teach you excessively inadvertently place people..."

You're missing some more commas.

And I see that I made a mistake also I meant to write 'to' but mistyped it as "too". So I did correct your mistake but made a typo and not made it worse as you suggest

You corrected my absence of a word with the wrong word. I'm going to go ahead and call that worse. If nothing else, it looks very silly to correct someone's mistake with a mistake.

I know you are mate as I have had to work with some people like you.

Sucks to be you. I'd hate to have to work with a bunch of me's. Especially because that would get really creepy seeing me all over the place.

Yes I did make another mistake.

Stop making them and I'll stop pointing them out.

Incidentally, you should have a comma after "yes."

I know you don't care which was my original point, you dismiss the argument because there are a few grammatical errors, and as I said I think that the way of thought is utter crap.

You said I was dismissing the argument as invalid. That is untrue. I am simply dismissing the argument, regardless of whether or not it is valid. There is a difference.

I suppose you need to say what you mean?

Missing some commas.

That was not a few grammatical errors. I have seen fewer grammatical errors on a test designed to see if you can catch and correct grammatical errors. The test was several pages long.

Yes it is, there we go that was indeed hyperbole

Should we go over understatement next?

At least you think you do.
Thirdly, I do know everything about anything. Because I'm awesome like that.

Don't have to think it.


Good for you mate. I have never said that I am a expert on grammar and during the rush of typing I may have missed a key here or there or I may have not have know that is where a comma or other punctuation mark belongs.

Known. Missing some commas.

I apologise if that caused you physical pain

Apologize. And only flagrant disregard for the rules of English grammar and spelling causes me physical pain.


Having never read the book I do not know, but I was asking how the hell do you suffer from physical pain from the post in this thread that you said just reading it causes you physical pain. And that is what I was referring you when calling you as weak

And I was countering your point of calling me weak by pointing out that there are many books that would cause normal people pain that are withstood by English majors. This is an example of an English major's fortitude which proves that they are, in fact, not weak at all. English majors have to spend every waking hour confronted by stupidity and ignorance of English grammar, and know every single time exactly what the mistake was and how to fix it. You try that an never go insane.

Of course, we might be insane. That is entirely possible. Although, most English majors are teachers, and all teachers are insane, so it would be difficult to prove the causality there.

And yes I do understand a bit about the the "pain" you have felt while reading such books as Sound of Fury, I read a book once called Blacktown written by Australian Champion boxer Shane Weaver he describes his childhood in the first few chapters, I won't go into details but it involved his drunk stepfather coming home every night and how this man would bash and rape his mother every night to the extent that she could hardly see due to the swelling of her eyes amongst other injuries, how he would take the brunt of his step fathers rage and get beaten to protect his brothers, and how he was forced to watch his mother raped at times and even his younger brother once. And yes I felt mental pain as my mind struggled to come to terms at how he lived his childhood (as well as the rest of his troubled life) and what it may have been like, but I never felt physical pain as you claim to have such as blurred vision and headaches.

That is empathetic emotional pain. Physical pain from a book does not come from the story, it comes from the fact that you have to read stream of consciousness from the point of view of a retarded man. The only way to describe that experience is "painful".

Thanks for informing me, you didn't have to be so sarcastic about it i only mentioned the author who wrote a book called Ceremony, you should have been more specific

Who said I was being sarcastic? I was informing you which book entitled "Ceremony" I was referring to. I suppose we need to go over how sarcasm works next instead of understatement.

Which is a shame, because I enjoy understatement.


(That was an understatement.)

The last point really isn't true, unless dressing in anything other than chav attire qualifies as being a "snobbish twat".
Oh please. I go out every weekend if I have the money in very Not Chavvy clothing, and I've never been beaten up by anyone. The only guy I know who did get beaten up by a chav was making remarks about "those construction types" at the College.

Aye, nice one. Make offensive sweeping statements to people time after time after time and you may be liable to get beaten up once they get tired of your shite. Quelle surprise :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/14/childrensservices.politics

I'm not British, but my experience with kids from that country matches what this article says.

A while ago I made a thread arguing that the voting age should be lower. Some people argued that they don't see how adults are abusing their power over people younger than 18. This is a good example of what I meant.

America is the 2nd worst by the way.

What do you think?
By now, we should realize that to be at the bottom of ANY list the UN publishes is probably a good thing.

America is the 2nd worst by the way.

I think the child poverty score in the US probably just comes from the fact that many of the groups most likely to be poor in the US (namely Latino's, African Americans, and Southern whites) are also the most likely to have children, and are primarilly responsible for America being one of only a few advanced nations with fertillity rates well above replacement. This is actually good news, as all three of the groups I listed have been seeing their incomes grow substantially (especially Latinos and Southerners, but AA's as well to a lesser degree) and hopefully this will push down that figure.

Britains more worrisome, as from what I've heard, there hasn't been a whole lot of good news for the lower classes in England.

That is a part of the whole problem. As I said, I excuse minor grammatical errors. A post using "u" for "you" or a post that doesn't capitalize properly, or a post that doesn't use punctuation correctly - any one of these is something I don't mind seeing occasionally, especially on NSG. But all of the above in one post, and probably more errors that I don't know about because I didn't bother reading it that closely - that is something I am not going to overlook. It is ok to have a mistake or two.

That post was not full of mistakes. That post was full of utter carelessness.

Yes I am aware, and "I know that his post isn't the same but I have seen you and other people like you go on and ignore good and well thought out points on topics because they have missed a full stop or a comma is missing". That was posted by me earlier, you would notice how I wasn't referring to you exclusively nor was I referring to just his post which I acknowledged was poor.

Also, you're missing some commas.

I hope I am not physically hurting you with all of my grammatical errors?

"Too" is another word for "also."

The other option is "That will teach you excessively inadvertently place people...".

Other alternatives are besides, else and moreover. You should have quoted exactly what I typed. And as you would see I expalined that I mistyped it leaving my finger on the 'o' key for to long.

Sucks to be you. I'd hate to have to work with a bunch of me's. Especially because that would get really creepy seeing me all over the place.

I said people like you not you as an individual.


You said I was dismissing the argument as invalid. That is untrue. I am simply dismissing the argument, regardless of whether or not it is valid. There is a difference.

I suppose you need to say what you mean?

I did originally say that it was utter crap that you dismiss a persons argument because of some grammatical errors.

That was not a few grammatical errors. I have seen fewer grammatical errors on a test designed to see if you can catch and correct grammatical errors. The test was several pages long.

As I acknowledged in this post and earlier posts that the poster did do a very poor job and that there were numerous grammatical errors, I then continued and said that people do dismiss an argument because there are a few grammatical errors.

Should we go over understatement next?

Please do.

And I was countering your point of calling me weak by pointing out that there are many books that would cause normal people pain that are withstood by English majors. This is an example of an English major's fortitude which proves that they are, in fact, not weak at all. English majors have to spend every waking hour confronted by stupidity and ignorance of English grammar, and know every single time exactly what the mistake was and how to fix it. You try that and never go insane.

In calling you weak I was referring to that particular post, not some book where you said it causes you physical pain. Perhaps you need to relax a bit mate and not bother about grammatical errors so much and it may offset your road to insanity.

Seems you made a typo there, or did I only make it worse.


Who said I was being sarcastic? I was informing you which book entitled "Ceremony" I was referring to. I suppose we need to go over how sarcasm works next instead of understatement.

Whatever floats your boat Jim.

Not really. I live here, in the UK. Sure different sub cultures spring up and these sub cultures may not like each other. In my opinion I believe the general public don't like chavs, the biggest sub culture of the lot.

Yeah I agree with you. With the youth if you are not a part of 'our' culture then you are ripe for trouble, this hsan't changed since I was kid, shit since when my dad was kid.

Yes I am aware, and "I know that his post isn't the same but I have seen you and other people like you go on and ignore good and well thought out points on topics because they have missed a full stop or a comma is missing". That was posted by me earlier, you would notice how I wasn't referring to you exclusively nor was I referring to just his post which I acknowledged was poor.

But you were referring to me. And we have established that in referring to me you have falsified that statement as you have not in fact see me act thusly more than this single time. Just because you have included others who do it, that does not mean that I also do it. You said that I do; I do not; your statement is false. Would you like it in formal logic?

I hope I am not physically hurting you with all of my grammatical errors?

My spleen might be feeling it.

What is a spleen, anyways?

Other alternatives are besides, else and moreover. You should have quoted exactly what I typed. And as you would see I explained that I mistyped it leaving my finger on the 'o' key for to long.

What you typed literally means what I said it means.

I said people like you not you as an individual.

They could look like me, too.

I did originally say that it was utter crap that you dismiss a persons argument because of some grammatical errors.

Actually, you said this:

So are you saying his argument is wrong because it is not grammatically correct, I am sure that is a fallacy.

For you to say that someone is incorrect and that their argument is wrong is complete and utter crap. I know that his post isn't the same but I have seen you and other people like you go on and dismiss good and well thought out points on topics because they have missed a full stop or a comma is missing, grow up and get a life, if you don't want to argue with him/her or can't accept that they have disproved your argument or typed something that you don't agree with, then you should either ignore it or post a counter argument that shows his argument to be false.

And does it really physically hurt you? I see you forgot to answer that question

And then you said this:

So if a person's argument has a cogent argument with a strong premise concluding with a conclusion, but because it has some grammatical errors then his argument must be invalid. Is that correct?

And then you said this:

And that is what I said was utter crap because you then go on to say "Those who do not take the time to make their posts even remotely grammatically correct cannot possibly have a good argument." And I did say not everyone has had correct teaching in grammar, this can be due to a number of reasons including that during school it was not taught to them as it is not in the curriculum or maybe the teacher that this person had had no idea about proper grammar and so taught his/her students improper grammar.

Which we talked about not being my problem and then you said this:

Did I ever say it was your problem, all I am saying is that you should take into consideration that not everybody here has an English major and may make grammatical errors from time to time, and maybe you should have a read of their posts rather than dismiss it because you see that it is not grammatically correct.

And the conversation continued from there.

You'll note that everything you've said means that I think the argument is wrong or invalid, which is not true. It could be right, it could be valid. I am not dismissing it as such. I am dismissing it as badly written.


As I acknowledged in this post and earlier posts that the poster did do a very poor job and that there were numerous grammatical errors, I then continued and said that people do dismiss an argument because there are a few grammatical errors.

And we have firmly established that I am not one of those people. We've also established that you should not inadvertently group people in groups they aren't actually in. Why does this keep coming up?

Please do.

Understatement: Restraint or lack of emphasis in expression, as for rhetorical effect.

I enjoy this conversation. (Understatement!)

In calling you weak I was referring to that particular post, not some book where you said it causes you physical pain.

And in referring to the book I was proving that your statement that I am weak is false. I am in fact not weak.

Perhaps you need to relax a bit mate and not bother about grammatical errors so much and it may offset your road to insanity.

Being insane has its benefits, I'm sure.

Seems you made a typo there, or did I only make it worse.

Ah-HA! You are intelligent. It would seem I owe some people some money.

Whatever floats your boat Jim.

My name is not Jim, nor do I have a boat. But if I did have a boat, I would probably name it Jim. Jim seems like a good name for a boat to me.

But you were referring to me. And we have established that in referring to me you have falsified that statement as you have not in fact see me act thusly more than this single time. Just because you have included others who do it, that does not mean that I also do it. You said that I do; I do not; your statement is false. Would you like it in formal logic?

And I said I acknowledged that fact and yes my statement was at false. Which lead me to say that I inadvertently placed you in that group

My spleen might be feeling it.

What is a spleen, anyways?

ha-ha you know you aren't half bad. A spleen is an organ that destroys old blood cells, more information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spleen

What you typed literally means what I said it means.

Yes but you still misquoted me what you should have wrote "Well that will teach you (also) inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

Thus while it means the same thing it is acknowledging that it is not a direct quote. I am sure you will correct me if that is wrong after all you have an English major, but that is the way I was taught by an English professor and I have seen it numerous times in publications and articles.

You'll note that everything you've said means that I think the argument is wrong or invalid, which is not true. It could be right, it could be valid. I am not dismissing it as such. I am dismissing it as badly written.

Yes I have gathered that I did go a bit wayward from what I set out to prove and acknowledged that you are not dismissing it because the argument is invalid, but you are dismissing it because it is "badly written".

And we have firmly established that I am not one of those people. We've also established that you should not inadvertently group people in groups they aren't actually in. Why does this keep coming up?


You tell me? As I acknowledged a long time ago that I mistakenly misplaced you in that group of people.


And in referring to the book I was proving that your statement that I am weak is false. I am in fact not weak.

This may be one fact that we will never agree upon. I am going to have to get a copy of Sound of Fury and read it then I may understand completely where you are coming from, not to mention that from what you have said it sounds like an interesting book to read. But to say to read that individual post would cause you physical pain sounds weak.

Being insane has its benefits, I'm sure.

I am not to sure, but being eccentric certainly does, and that is close enough to being insane

Ah-HA! You are intelligent. It would seem I owe some people some money.

ha-ha, yes indeed it does.

My name is not Jim, nor do I have a boat. But if I did have a boat, I would probably name it Jim. Jim seems like a good name for a boat to me.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny or don't understand the meaning of the phrase. Whatever rocks your boat, is a phrase in Australia (and maybe in your part of the world wherever that is?) meaning "do what you want to" or "whatever you want" the Jim was added as it is a name that is given sort of a colloquialism, and it doesn't matter if your name is Jim or not.

If you are being funny I have a smile on my face and saying "you are an idiot". (and I mean that in the Australian sense of the word not an insult but more along the lines of "very funny" or I am not meaning that you are an idiot but having a laugh along with your joke. It is hard to explain but to give you some comparaison, Australians tend to call their best friends "complete bastards" where as enemies or people that they dislike would be described as "a bit of a bastard" a bit strange I know but that's the way it goes)

And I said I acknowledged that fact and yes my statement was at false. Which lead me to say that I inadvertently placed you in that group

So tell me again why we're still talking about this?

ha-ha you know you aren't half bad. A spleen is an organ that destroys old blood cells, more information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spleen
Good to know. Bad grammar causes my body to not be able to filter blood very well. We should get some biologists in on this: I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in there somewhere.

Yes but you still misquoted me what you should have wrote "Well that will teach you (also) inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

Thus while it means the same thing it is acknowledging that it is not a direct quote. I am sure you will correct me if that is wrong after all you have an English major, but that is the way I was taught by an English professor and I have seen it numerous times in publications and articles.

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting a literal meaning of what you said.

Yes I have gathered that I did go a bit wayward from what I set out to prove and acknowledged that you are not dismissing it because the argument is invalid, but you are dismissing it because it is "badly written".

Indeed. Are we on the same page now?

You tell me? As I acknowledged a long time ago that I mistakenly misplaced you in that group of people.

Because you keep bringing up other people as if it were relevant to me.

This may be one fact that we will never agree upon. I am going to have to get a copy of Sound of Fury and read it then I may understand completely where you are coming from, not to mention that from what you have said it sounds like an interesting book to read. But to say to read that individual post would cause you physical pain sounds weak.

The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner. Have fun with that.

And sounding weak and being weak are different things. And yes, I realize that perception is what matters, which is why I set out to amend your perception of me by providing an example of my strength.

I am not to sure, but being eccentric certainly does, and that is close enough to being insane

I think I have eccentric covered. We'll see how long it takes to get to insane. If my ex has any say in the matter it will be sooner rather than later.

I don't know if you are trying to be funny or don't understand the meaning of the phrase. Whatever rocks your boat, is a phrase in Australia (and maybe in your part of the world wherever that is?) meaning "do what you want to" or "whatever you want" the Jim was added as it is a name that is given sort of a colloquialism, and it doesn't matter if your name is Jim or not.

We're cooking with gas, now, aren't we?

If you are being funny I have a smile on my face and saying "you are an idiot". (and I mean that in the Australian sense of the word not an insult but more along the lines of "very funny" or I am not meaning that you are an idiot but having a laugh along with your joke. It is hard to explain but to give you some comparaison, Australians tend to call their best friends "complete bastards" where as enemies or people that they dislike would be described as "a bit of a bastard" a bit strange I know but that's the way it goes)

I'd like to think I can be funny and serious at the same time. It's hard to pull off, let me tell you.

Oh please. I go out every weekend if I have the money in very Not Chavvy clothing, and I've never been beaten up by anyone. The only guy I know who did get beaten up by a chav was making remarks about "those construction types" at the College.

Aye, nice one. Make offensive sweeping statements to people time after time after time and you may be liable to get beaten up once they get tired of your shite. Quelle surprise :eek:

hmm...I still believe this is more anecdotal than anything else. The majority of my friends from home (Essex, depressingly), myself included, have been attacked and, or, beaten up by chavs. In my case, it was the heinous crime of wearing skinny jeans in a club, however, from my experiance they go out loooking for a fight more than anything.

However, I would raise this question; do you think it a symptom of a healthy society that the majority of it's poorer youths deem it acceptable to punch anybody who calls them a "construction type" when they themselves throw perjorative terms steeped in ignorance and prejudice at anybody they see fit?

So tell me again why we're still talking about this?

I have no idea, i thought I made it obvious a few posts ago

Good to know. Bad grammar causes my body to not be able to filter blood very well. We should get some biologists in on this: I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in there somewhere.

Good Idea, must have something to do with your blood boiling when reading poor grammar which causes your spleen to malfunction. Wait by your phone to hear from the Nobel Prize Committee

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting a literal meaning of what you said..

You placed my statement in quotation marks quoted below
"Well that will teach you also inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

Surely that means you quoted me doesn't it, and thus should have but the word "also" in brackets?

Indeed. Are we on the same page now?

Yes we are and in doing so you have also explained why you will dismiss him because of poor grammer which was my original (at least intended) point and why I thought that, that reasoning was utter crap.

The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner. Have fun with that.

I hope to, when I get the time to be able to read it and I will let you know what I think about it.

I think I have eccentric covered. We'll see how long it takes to get to insane. If my ex has any say in the matter it will be sooner rather than later.

lol

We're cooking with gas, now, aren't we?

I think this is meant to be a joke, rather than an insult. The phrase "whatever rocks your boat" is a widely accepted term which as I say most Australians are aware of and understand what it means.

I'd like to think I can be funny and serious at the same time. It's hard to pull off, let me tell you.

I'm sure it is mate, you seem to be able to pull it off

I have no idea, i thought I made it obvious a few posts ago
So shut up already!

Good Idea, must have something to do with your blood boiling when reading poor grammar which causes your spleen to malfunction. Wait by your phone to hear from the Nobel Prize Committee

I should probably go see a doctor about it, first.

You placed my statement in quotation marks quoted below
"Well that will teach you also inadvertently place people in groups they aren't actually in, won't it."

Surely that means you quoted me doesn't it, and thus should have but the word "also" in brackets?

It means I quoted someone. Which could mean I quoted you, or I quoted myself, or I quoted someone else entirely. Or it could mean I used quotes to show that it was taken from somewhere else (a literal meaning of another quote) and not a part of the rest of my post: in essence, quoting not-me.

Yes we are and in doing so you have also explained why you will dismiss him because of poor grammer which was my original (at least intended) point and why I thought that, that reasoning was utter crap.

Well ok then.

I'm glad we had this talk.

Don't do drugs.

Stay in school.

Eat healthy foods.

I hope to, when I get the time to be able to read it and I will let you know what I think about it.

You may have trouble getting a hold of him, as he is an American author and not very well known elsewhere, to my knowledge.

lol

No-contact order. That's all I have to say about that.

I think this is meant to be a joke, rather than an insult. The phrase "whatever rocks your boat" is a widely accepted term which as I say most Australians are aware of and understand what it means.

Ozzies tend to forget that half their slag used to be, or still is American slang.

I'm sure it is mate, you seem to be able to pull it off

It's a talent, really.

The West is arrogant to the max, in my own country of Australia the government talks about 'human rights' while our indigenous population has the lowest living conditions and life expectancy of any native population on the planet. In America it's even worst, they talk about 'freedom' while millions loose their homes and the poor are basically indentured servants to big business.

Look at whose being critical of someone's treatment of indigenous groups, Mr. Dzugashvili-Jr. :rolleyes:

So shut up already!

You're the one who keeps asking why we are still talking about it!

It means I quoted someone. Which could mean I quoted you, or I quoted myself, or I quoted someone else entirely. Or it could mean I used quotes to show that it was taken from somewhere else (a literal meaning of another quote) and not a part of the rest of my post: in essence, quoting not-me.

True you didn't cite the quote as mine, it was implied however. In fact later on in the post you do mention how I made the statement worse (which is what you quoted) by my poor attempt to correct it.


You may have trouble getting a hold of him, as he is an American author and not very well known elsewhere, to my knowledge.

I will give it a go, the National library or state library may have a copy

No-contact order. That's all I have to say about that.

Ah I see.

Ozzies tend to forget that half their slang used to be, or still is American slang.

Well I wasn't too sure, I am aware that some of our slang is American, some from the UK and some is home grown.

You're the one who keeps asking why we are still talking about it!

Talking about what now?

True you didn't cite the quote as mine, it was implied however. In fact later on in the post you do mention how I made the statement worse (which is what you quoted) by my poor attempt to correct it.

I didn't quote the statement you corrected, I quoted what the statement you "corrected" literally means. Clearly it was not implied that I was quoting you as I couldn't have been quoting you as that is not what you said.

I will give it a go, the National library or state library may have a copy

Give Hemingway a go while you're at it. He decided he was going to write books without ever using a single descriptive word, a lo, it was done.

Ah I see.

Incidentally, trombone players suck.

Well I wasn't too sure, I am aware that some of our slang is American, some from the UK and some is home grown.

It's just as well. Americans tend to forget that most of the world doesn't care.

I think the child poverty score in the US probably just comes from the fact that many of the groups most likely to be poor in the US (.

This is a factor in the UK too. Both nations have absorbed large numbers of "lower class" immigrants, the UK more so in the past few decades.

Prior to that, the UK, and the rest of Europe, was a net exporter of lower class citizens.

I would bet these same issues pop up in every nation absorbing a large number of lower class immigrants. In the long run it is beneficial, if they assimilate, in the short run it is expensive and stressful.