Misc. side comments to things in other topics

Ihr Freund war richtig. Russisch ist das schwierigste Sprache ich kenne. Zum Beispiel...All verbs agree with the subject in number and person, but when in the past tense they agree in gender. There are two different verb conjugations with different endings for each number/person and plenty of irregular ones. Adjectives agree with the gender (masculine, feminine, neuter, plural) and the case (nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, prepositional) of the noun, and can be changed to a short form or an adverb which can also make a phrase regarding an object's attribute. Masculine/neuter nouns generally have different case forms to feminine or plural. There are special reflexive verbs which make an English object the subject and an English subject the indirect object.

Hi defender,
That is basically why he stopped. He does a lot of Pleistocene research in Russia so travels there often and wanted to learn a little bit to have more fun...last time we talked about it he said that rather than saying I want to read or buy a newspaper you use to eat...sounds like one could become very confused very quickly not to mention insulting people unintentionally
cheers,
M

Wow! That does sound like an inbuilt metaphor. Yet it's not much different from devouring or digesting a book in English!
I haven't come across that particular oddity. One strange thing is that they have no articles or "to be" verb. Also they use a peculiar construction to indicate possession:U menya dom "I have a house" is literally "in the possession of" (U) "me" (menya) "house" (dom).The only way Russian is better than German for English speakers is that you can usually tell a noun's gender from the word alone.
Just my linguistic ravings...

Or from being a consumer in general.

I appreciate your comments and willingness to meet me half way. I still don't quite understand how I deviated all that much from forum rules, as you alledged, but will agree to try and give more diligence to this if you're willing to loosen the restriction and see how it works out. I guess one problem is that when I, as a creationist minority, post opposing statements to the majority and six people answer, I am expected to address them all or I'm charged with leaving things hanging by members and moderators, thereby allegedly breaking rules even when I simply am too busy to address all the arguments of my counterparts or choose not to make replying comment. In the free for all there's not that problem so much with the freedom there, but then there's so many topics of interest in the other forums that I'm not able to respond to and I do miss that.By the same token I've made points that my counterparts choose to ignore, sometimes because they either obviously choose not to or have no refutational argument on numerous occasions and there seems to be no problem. I have no problem with that, but would appreciate the same priviledge when I'm either too busy with other matters or don't feel their argument is worthy of response. I hope not to put myself in the position of being strapped to the forum by comments I make or to be obligated to every comment made in response to those comments of mine.I have a lot of outside work around home and business to get done before cold weather and will at times be hit and miss in participation. Thanks.BTW, I'm going to miss, Syamsu, as it seemed he was one creationist who could articulate the language in debate with you all, more so than most of us creationists. IMO, it's a great loss to our team. I hope he can/will return sometime. I'm not making judgement here though, as I haven't read all that's transpired with him.

quote:

---

I guess one problem is that when I, as a creationist minority, post opposing statements to the majority and six people answer, I am expected to address them all or I'm charged with leaving things hanging by members and moderators, thereby allegedly breaking rules even when I simply am too busy to address all the arguments of my counterparts or choose not to make replying comment.

---

If it is that much of a problem, pick someone and open a 'Great Debate' topic. It is rarely used, but if I remember correctly, the Great Debate is supposed to be for one on one debate.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thanks John, but please don't missunderstand me. I appreciate the input of all who are interested and inclined to respond, but also would appreciate the ability to respond to those comments which I feel worthy of my time and some patience on the part of majority view counterparts since it is sometimes one on five or six.

Gotta go for now. Bath n bed time. Outa town much of tomorrow.

My sincere apologies to Percy, Moose, and defenderofthefaith. I have been so out of it in forum activity these last few weeks that I missed your posts on moderation proceedures and so forth. The last I saw way back when was your Message 34 in this thread, Percy, and by that I assumed it was ok to go ahead and post elsewhere. Then when I saw your statement, Moose, elsewhere to the effect that you approved of my posting outside of Freeforall, I began to check back and found these other posts.As you can see, my time here is too limited, I'm afraid to even find time to read much, outside of what I acturally respond to. I don't think I would be of much help in that regard.Defenderofthe faith, I believe you asked me to comment on what aspects of moderation I am troubled with. I think moderation here is very good for the most part, so there's likely not enough complaint by me to warrant a thread. My problem, I believe is the consensus of Syamsu and what I've read of some others, whom I don't specifically recall; that moderation is biased in favor of evos. I don't think this is intentional, and consequently not recognized by the administration, whose mindset is naturalistic. This mindset is naturally uninclined to recognize supernatural events as possible because they do by definition, overstep scientific fundamentals which Administration seems to insist on being continually relevant to sensible discussion in the science topics.Then too, since most of the few creationists who find the time to be here are not scientists, and with the exception of a few, are unable to articulate much of the language of the physicist minded folk here in town. I'm glad to see Syamsu is back posting again, as he's one of those who can articulate quite well here, from what I've read of him. Consequently, when we do venture into some of these technical topics, we find ourselves having to resort much to links of those who are apprised in science and physics. I think the moderation of these situations should be more tolerant of this situation, as well as something John Paul alluded to, and that will be my third comment.Being the minority, we have more posts of our majority view counterparts. It is nice to have all that response, for the most part, but unless we spend a lot of time, it is really difficult to be really fair with all our counterparts and respond to each argument. In the Freeforall, we are able to pick and choose, as time warrants as to which posts we deem worthy of our time and can participate without being reminded of rules, unless it gets so out of hand that moderation is needed anyhow. O course, I found that being restricted to Freeforall isn't too neat either, as it would mess up the whole forum if main topics become too prevalent on Freeforall. I understand that problem more, having been tenyeared for a spell there. Off the cuff, I'd be inclined to think Defenderofthefaith would be fine at a try for moderator. Admittedly though, I haven't read enough to be very objective on that though, and would not be surprised if Administration would want to observe input by anyone for a period of time before installing moderators.Thanks Percy and Moose, for being fair and understanding with me. I'll try to keep the peace and participate in an acceptable manner, keeping those basic rules in mind. buz[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 09-15-2003]

From http://EvC Forum: Human Races -->EvC Forum: Human Races, where the Frog said:

quote:

---

On the other hand, all observers can agree at what point water becomes ice. That's at zero degrees Celsius.

---

But only at standard pressure. At higher pressures the freezing point goes down.He also said (in reply to "Different degrees of temperature blend into one another"):

quote:

---

Ludicrous. Temperature in degrees is a discreet property. 50 degrees doesn't "blend" into 51 or 49 degrees.

---

I won't pick on this one too hard, but temperature gradients are real.Lastly, from http://EvC Forum: Human Races -->EvC Forum: Human Races, the Frog said:

quote:

---

Everybody agrees on exactly how much heat energy a degree of temperature represents.

---

Heat content is not (at least directly) measured in temperature units. In metric, energy is measured in Joules, while temperature is measured in Kelvins (or degrees Celsius). The same amount of heat (energy) will NOT equally change the temperature of equal masses of two different substances.I'll now stand by, for someone to nit-pick me.Mooseps: Not that this has any apparent relationship to the topic there.

Thank God you're on the case, MM. I quite literally quake in abject terror at the thought of what a gaping chasm of misunderstanding might have opened had readers not understood that pressure affects matter state transitions.

Message 1 of a topic at Terry's Talk Origins:

quote:

---

Convinced as I am that everything has a genetic basis, I take this opportunity to present my conviction that political liberalism and the Darwinian fairy tale are highly correlated. Just as nearly all white cats are deaf, so I propose that nearly all Darwinians are political liberals. This has altready been established for university professors and I am now generalizing to include Darwinians everywhere one finds them, especially on internet forums such as EvC, FringeSciences and "Brainstorms" Even this forum is crawling with them. Can you imagine Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan or Tony Blair or our own George Walker Bush as a Darwinian? For the life of me I cannot.

​

One of my favorite political commentators is Ann Coulter, whom I would recommend as the succesor to Donald Rumsfeld should he resign. She is the ultimate conservative. In her current column she has described liberals as follows:

​

"Liberals are clueless, amoral sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists."

​

I cannot imagine a more fitting description of your average garden variety Darwinian. Can anyone?

---

Mind boggling.MooseAdded by edit: By the way, I got the boot there for saying "Ban me if you wish, but I think that GWB was voted in by the coalition of the ignorant, the stupid, and the greedy."So we got the "clueless, amoral sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists" versus "the ignorant, the stupid, and the greedy".This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-26-2004 22:22 AM

ann coulter wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it met her in the elevator.

Can you be off-topic in an off-topic topic? This brings me to Ann Coulter.RAZD writes:

quote:

---

ann coulter wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it met her in the elevator.

---

Did anyone else besides me see the interview she did with CBC a few weeks ago to promote her latest stupid book? I saw it on NWI. She never answered a single question the guy asked. She'd go off on one of her rants about liberals as usual, but then the guy would go right back to the same question she had never got round to answering. Then she'd go on another rant about liberals and the guy would repeat the same question. He was excrutiatingly calm and patient, and I now see that this simple tactic is the most effective to use against her. By the end of it there was no mistaking the fact that Ann herself knew she had been played for the fool she is. It was quite gratifying, really.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

sounds like a good place to be banned from.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}