I agree with Leafmould. It's been a little too much nonsense threads from a certain source lately and even I have been thinking of leaving because of it. It shouldn't need to happen because of one person. because if for every piece of useful information you have to wade through endless threads about everything on earth you soon get pretty tired of it. the forum should be a place to first of all discuss writing-related issues, not to air every thought that passes through your head (and stubbornly defend it from other peoples thoughts on it, especially when they try to explain what you thought you knew is wrong), otherwise this will soon no longer be the kind of forum that brought you here.
I'm resolving (rather late in the game) to stop responding in the contexts where it's clear that my response will be disregarded and will just be fuel for another digression, never to circle back to the beginning. That's not to say that I won't respond when digressions turn into actual discussions involving posters that are usually responsive--I've never been all that concerned about keeping threads on topic, as long as the digressions go somewhere. It's only in these past few weeks that there have been so many nonproductive digressions, and I'm reasonably confident that the problem will fade in time. ChickenFreak
OK. Fine You did say carrying something LABOURIOUSLY which means that it is heavy. Luggage is the same baggage. We use baggage in an expression to describe ''weight'' which left me to think that luggage must implie more than one. How else would explain LABOURIOUSLY? This word BELONGINGS there is an S which implies Plural/more then one.(to me anyway) but I am told that I am wrong. Ok well Itake it as I am. Here is google of it: luggage [ˈlʌgɪdʒ]. n. suitcases, trunks, etc., containing personal belongings for a journey; baggage. [perhaps from lug1, influenced in form by baggage] ... Containers for a traveler's belongings. 2. The cases and belongings of a traveler. *PLEASE Notice the PLURAL*
the 'gross' quote was a pun/play on words, cacian... because while 'gross' means 'large/extreme/etc.' a 'gross' is an amount [= 12 dozen, or 144 items]... do you get it now?
yes I do understand what gross means if you take it out of context. It also means something hiddeous or disgusting. In the quote it says Gross ignorance and ignorance so I just wanted to understand what he actually meant by it? you could say racism is Gross Ignorance but someone might disagree and say no that is just ignorance. I am thinking that he propably meant it to be ''open for interpretation''. but then what you are saying is that to be ignorant once is just ignorance but to be ignorant twice is gross?? I did not actually read it as a number as I explained above.
you're dead right. It is the only way. I was involved in various usenet fora for years and these types always dry up in the end. Especially if they have the attention span of a Yorkshire terrier on bennies. However, if you feed that Yorkie, he will hang around.
I'm not quoting just because you agree with me, but because you have managed to air your feelings and grievances in an exemplary manner - often a difficult task to pull off well. Well done!
i use the word 'hate' myself, only in re inanimate objects or concepts, since i've given up 'hating' people, though i can certainly still hate what so many of them DO... in all but personal writing [letters, posts, etc.], of course, i would use it as appropriate in any sense of the word...
Please do not assume that because you do not agree or understand what a post is about , it makes i nonsencical. You are not in a position to criticise my threads as being nonsense since your only contribution is to criticise or put them down as nonesensical. I can think of things you say that I find nonsensical but I still won't go around advertising it to get more applauds. if I did put up a thread it is because I am interest and what people have to say. It is there for a reason.
Yet you believe that you have the right to criticize Tesoro, to tell her she doesn't understand, call her an attention hound (basically), etc. because she bothered to share an opinion? An opinion I agree with, btw, and it would seem many others do as well. Listen, I'm all for helping people. I'll help anyone. But the main problem is trying to help someone that slaps at us everytime we try. You don't want help. You don't want understanding. You want attention, control of the (MOUNTAINS OF!) threads you make, and then more attention as you try to convert us to your understanding or something. The threads seem to serve no other purpose than giving you the ability to 'hear your own voice' (metaphorically of course, because you're typing), and wading through it all is exhausting. Laboriously does NOT equal luggage. Not on this planet. You CAN lug luggage around laboriously, but that will never make luggage 'laborious'. Making luggage could be laborious, carrying it could be laborious, reading your logic about it and sittting here typing out my own drivel in response is laborious, but the luggage is just there.
it has nothing to do with being 'easy' for me... only with a moral stance i've vowed to maintain, in which i no longer hate people... besides, hatred of our fellow humans is counterproductive... and hatred of any other fellow animals is simply silly, since they can only be as they were designed and do not choose to be harmful...
I see. It is true that it is not counterproductive at all and it can in fact make things worse if one delved into telling their fellow humans that they hated them. However I found it recently overused in a programm I have been watching where people constantly refered to things they hate. It made me think of how very little things I ''hate'' as I dislike the word. It also me think of why do people hate MANY things with such intensity.
Another expression which is better? I get off the chair or I stood up? then I get off the bus then I got something off my chest however 1)I sat on a chair 2)I got on the bus 3)I had something on my chest?? or I had something on my mind? The question is: if all THREE share the same expressions but their opposite is not the same. what is the opposite of I got something off my chest?
...the second is better... the first is awkward... 'i got it off my chest' is an idiom and doesn't have an 'on' opposite... its counterpart would be 'i kept it to myself'... or 'didn't tell anyone' or anything along those lines... 'i kept something on my chest' would mean an item, such as a blanket, or a muffler...
Actually, with the first one (I get off the chair or I stood up) they're not even in the same tense. So, to accurately compare them it would be 'I stood up or I got off the chair' or 'I get off the chair vs. I stand up'. Now that they're actually comparable I don't actually think either one is awkward is on its own. It would depend on context and what you're going for.
Idioms have no opposites? I got off the chair I got off the bus Imagery wise not they are not the same because one suggests you stood up and the other one suggest you left went one step down right? Got off here inboth cases do not bear the same meaning right?
I was going to say : The phone rang so I got off the chair to pick the phone up. or The phone rang so I stood up to pick it up.
Generally, for me anyway, I would say 'got up to answer it' or pick it up or whatever. 'Got off the chair' I would use if my character was standing on a chair to reach something and would normally use it from a sitting position only for something like 'got off the couch'. That doesn't mean I'm right, it's just what sounds right and flows best to me. 'Stood' seems to invoke a more formal mindset (again... to me) so I would use that if my character was standing to greet someone important or something. As for the idiom question you asked mamma, idioms do have opposites, but since they are phrases they don't have direct opposites where you change one word. You have to find the contrasting phrase, like she showed you. Got off the bus indicates an entire series of motions, standing from your seat, walking the aisle, down the step, to the street. Context is a complex and meaningful thing.
Just a curiosity ... is "up" really needed here after "stood"? In the context, can one really stand any other way? What about, "The phone rang so I climbed up out of my chair and grabbed it"?
No, up isn't needed unless that's how your character speaks. You can drop it. The same with climbed up out, or climbed out, although, honestly with both of those I would think of a child or child-like personality.
Yea, it fits with a child-like voice, or perhaps someone less educated ... in the latter I might use clumb, too
