different way of understanding grammer.

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Wyman »

mtmynd1 wrote:
Impenitent wrote:isolated?

The Wampanoag smiled at your pilgrims...

-Imp
Indeed. Smiles are not threatening. :)
Don't bother trying to have a rational conversation with VT, shes monomaniacal.

But really, Arising and Imp, do you have to be constantly anti-American when someone is obviously expressing no ill will in your direction? Why are the Pilgrims 'our' Pilgrims when there was no U.S.A. until 1776? Are the Indians killed prior to 1776 on your hands and thereafter on ours? Did 'we' bring the slaves here or did Europeans? Does it make any sense to point fingers at this point? I think it's ridiculous.
Why can't we admire the fortitude and bravery of the U.K. after Hitler invaded France and before he attacked Russia and the U.S. (or his allies) and also give credit to the U.S. for giving up their neutrality (unlike the Swiss and others) prior to being attacked, with lend-lease? And was Chamberlain's U.K. any better in the sense of being 'happy to trade with the Nazis' after Hitler annexed the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia but before he attacked an ally they had an actual written obligation to defend? You come off as somewhat prejudiced and bitter. I don't think the WWII generation had these prejudices, they were all too busy fighting for survival side by side.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

mtmynd1 wrote:
Impenitent wrote:isolated?

The Wampanoag smiled at your pilgrims...

-Imp
Indeed. Smiles are not threatening. :)
Stalin smiled all the time.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by mtmynd1 »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Stalin smiled all the time.
every picture I've seen of him do not show a smile.

however > :) I do.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

mtmynd1 wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Stalin smiled all the time.
every picture I've seen of him do not show a smile.

however > :) I do.
Congratulations. Do you have enormous veneers too, and a mouth that takes up half your face when smiling?
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by mtmynd1 »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Congratulations. Do you have enormous veneers too, and a mouth that takes up half your face when smiling?
Hell yes! don't we all...?
Impenitent
Posts: 3123
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Impenitent »

Wyman wrote:
mtmynd1 wrote:
Impenitent wrote:isolated?

The Wampanoag smiled at your pilgrims...

-Imp
Indeed. Smiles are not threatening. :)
Don't bother trying to have a rational conversation with VT, shes monomaniacal.

But really, Arising and Imp, do you have to be constantly anti-American when someone is obviously expressing no ill will in your direction? Why are the Pilgrims 'our' Pilgrims when there was no U.S.A. until 1776? Are the Indians killed prior to 1776 on your hands and thereafter on ours? Did 'we' bring the slaves here or did Europeans? Does it make any sense to point fingers at this point? I think it's ridiculous.
Why can't we admire the fortitude and bravery of the U.K. after Hitler invaded France and before he attacked Russia and the U.S. (or his allies) and also give credit to the U.S. for giving up their neutrality (unlike the Swiss and others) prior to being attacked, with lend-lease? And was Chamberlain's U.K. any better in the sense of being 'happy to trade with the Nazis' after Hitler annexed the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia but before he attacked an ally they had an actual written obligation to defend? You come off as somewhat prejudiced and bitter. I don't think the WWII generation had these prejudices, they were all too busy fighting for survival side by side.
I was simply pointing out that the pilgrims were not so innocent or alone...

manifest destiny is a nice progressive lie...

-Imp
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Lev Muishkin »

pljamesone@att.net wrote:I cannot understand verbs and nouns clearly, so I created my own way to understand them. I use sentence structure and use the words as to relate to every sentence equally. Thoughts? paul
You might like to know the spelling of grammar.
Your second sentence does not make sense. What do you mean?
Grammar is common to all humans, you can understand language and use it without knowing the theory of grammar. Ask any 4 year old that wants some more ice-cream.
"I want ice-cream" can be parsed; Pronoun, verb, noun. But the child doesn't know that.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Arising_uk »

mtmynd1 wrote:The Pilgrims were able to live without interference into their lives from others (this was in 1620).
Your pilgrims were the Puritans who did much interfering in others lives and when those others decided enough was enough the Pilgrims left to fuck-up someone else's lifestyle.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Arising_uk »

Wyman wrote:But really, Arising and Imp, do you have to be constantly anti-American when someone is obviously expressing no ill will in your direction? Why are the Pilgrims 'our' Pilgrims when there was no U.S.A. until 1776? Are the Indians killed prior to 1776 on your hands and thereafter on ours? Did 'we' bring the slaves here or did Europeans? Does it make any sense to point fingers at this point? I think it's ridiculous.
Not anti-american? It was Mtmynd1 that linked America as a haven for 'our' unwanted Pilgrims and seekers of freedoms and choices. I was just pointing out that these Pilgrims were the Puritans who interfered much in the lives of others in England and that they left because they couldn't do so anymore, so not so much for freedom and choice. Didn't say a word about the Indians but the bulk were killed after your independence I thought?

I thought imp was an American?
Why can't we admire the fortitude and bravery of the U.K. after Hitler invaded France and before he attacked Russia and the U.S. (or his allies) and also give credit to the U.S. for giving up their neutrality (unlike the Swiss and others) prior to being attacked, with lend-lease? ...
One, because the Yank always brings-up the argument of how they saved us, two, because lending money and charging interest upon it is not giving-up neutrality(its making a buck) as American was also dealing with the Nazi and three, he didn't attack the USA, Jap did and America would not have come if they hadn't.
And was Chamberlain's U.K. any better in the sense of being 'happy to trade with the Nazis' after Hitler annexed the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia but before he attacked an ally they had an actual written obligation to defend? You come off as somewhat prejudiced and bitter. I don't think the WWII generation had these prejudices, they were all too busy fighting for survival side by side.
:lol: Where do you think I got these prejudices? But I don't have them really as I thought my grandparents a bit harsh on the American, although they never forgave you for rebuilding and harbouring the Nazi and Nip, and I only ever dust them off when listening to another Yank spouting on about the war and the debt we owe, a debt we paid with interest mind you.

Mind you, you made a fair point about trade and treaties and I generally only raise it to the Yank who insists upon the 'we saved you' line when it was only in your self-interest and not the great moral act that the Yank often tries to imply. Its also annoying that the Soviets get ignored as without their 20,000,000 dead I think we'd still be on the beaches.
Impenitent
Posts: 3123
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Impenitent »

Arising_uk wrote: I thought imp was an American?
yep... part Abenaki as well...

-Imp
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Lev Muishkin »

Wyman wrote: But really, Arising and Imp, do you have to be constantly anti-American when someone is obviously expressing no ill will in your direction? Why are the Pilgrims 'our' Pilgrims when there was no U.S.A. until 1776? Are the Indians killed prior to 1776 on your hands and thereafter on ours? Did 'we' bring the slaves here or did Europeans? Does it make any sense to point fingers at this point? I think it's ridiculous.
Why can't we admire the fortitude and bravery of the U.K. after Hitler invaded France and before he attacked Russia and the U.S. (or his allies) and also give credit to the U.S. for giving up their neutrality (unlike the Swiss and others) prior to being attacked, with lend-lease? And was Chamberlain's U.K. any better in the sense of being 'happy to trade with the Nazis' after Hitler annexed the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia but before he attacked an ally they had an actual written obligation to defend? You come off as somewhat prejudiced and bitter. I don't think the WWII generation had these prejudices, they were all too busy fighting for survival side by side.
I think the difference is that Americans valorise the slaughter of the Amerinds or at least deny that their demise was effective genocide. The horror of "Manifest Destiny" elevated to a religious doctrine was a major tragedy for millions. In contrast many UK citizens have learned to look with shame on the actions of the British Empire, though I have to say that fashions in history change, and with each decade truth needs to be mobilised to challenge myths.

As for WW2, the US stayed out until Hitler declared war, and what you call 'neutrality" was a sham as the US was happily making lots of money supplying the UK with arms.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by mtmynd1 »

Lev Muishkin wrote: As for WW2, the US stayed out until Hitler declared war, and what you call 'neutrality" was a sham as the US was happily making lots of money supplying the UK with arms.
Curious about this comment. It obviously was extremely important that the UK was in need of arms, wouldn't you agree? Why would they purchase these arms if there weren't a need? Did the U.S. arms manufacturers make a big profit..? That is the name of this game we're all involved in, i.e. capitalism.

This whole conversation that has been going on with a couple of posters leaning towards the negative attitude about the USA... this is one of those choices between two sides we all make and the frustration AK and Imp have chosen to lean towards the negative disregarding the positive ending, I'm sure the majority would agree with.

It's an example of "duality" which came up on another board recently that was questioned. It's baffling to me that so many everywhere I observe, how this fact of life, duality, is merely considered a subject that one can either agree with or negate, that in itself but yet one more example of ... duality.

When something that most would refer to as "really good!" or positive, soon attains the point where all that 'goodness' begins to lose it's sheen and before long it becomes a negative because it wasn't just perfect! (Perfection being without flaw of any kind... strictly a decisive choice of what one considers qualitatively or quantitatively "perfect")
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Lev Muishkin »

mtmynd1 wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote: As for WW2, the US stayed out until Hitler declared war, and what you call 'neutrality" was a sham as the US was happily making lots of money supplying the UK with arms.
Curious about this comment. It obviously was extremely important that the UK was in need of arms, wouldn't you agree? Why would they purchase these arms if there weren't a need? Did the U.S. arms manufacturers make a big profit..? That is the name of this game we're all involved in, i.e. capitalism. )
What makes you think I said this to critique capitalism.
My point which I thought obvious was the fact that the claimed 'neutrality" was a sham.
You can't sells arms, and transport them across the Atlantic AND claim neutrality.
That's why the Wolf Pack hit US supplies and Hitler declared war.
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by mtmynd1 »

Lev Muishkin wrote:\
My point which I thought obvious was the fact that the claimed 'neutrality" was a sham.
You can't sells arms, and transport them across the Atlantic AND claim neutrality.
That's why the Wolf Pack hit US supplies and Hitler declared war.
Politically the government was neutral. The selling of arms was not selling the arms of the Nation's weaponry but the weapons manufactured by independent, free trade manufacturers who are free to sell outside the government.

Hitler declared war because he was a madman who was out to see how far he could carry the banner of Nazism across the continent and beyond... that and he had a mighty, mighty army to back that effort. To insinuate the U.S. actions to somehow being responsible for Nazi power to invade the UK is a wee bit out of bounds from the facts, IMO.
Wyman
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:21 pm

Re: different way of understanding grammer.

Post by Wyman »

Arising_uk wrote:
Wyman wrote:But really, Arising and Imp, do you have to be constantly anti-American when someone is obviously expressing no ill will in your direction? Why are the Pilgrims 'our' Pilgrims when there was no U.S.A. until 1776? Are the Indians killed prior to 1776 on your hands and thereafter on ours? Did 'we' bring the slaves here or did Europeans? Does it make any sense to point fingers at this point? I think it's ridiculous.
Not anti-american? It was Mtmynd1 that linked America as a haven for 'our' unwanted Pilgrims and seekers of freedoms and choices. I was just pointing out that these Pilgrims were the Puritans who interfered much in the lives of others in England and that they left because they couldn't do so anymore, so not so much for freedom and choice. Didn't say a word about the Indians but the bulk were killed after your independence I thought?

I thought imp was an American?
Why can't we admire the fortitude and bravery of the U.K. after Hitler invaded France and before he attacked Russia and the U.S. (or his allies) and also give credit to the U.S. for giving up their neutrality (unlike the Swiss and others) prior to being attacked, with lend-lease? ...
One, because the Yank always brings-up the argument of how they saved us, two, because lending money and charging interest upon it is not giving-up neutrality(its making a buck) as American was also dealing with the Nazi and three, he didn't attack the USA, Jap did and America would not have come if they hadn't.
And was Chamberlain's U.K. any better in the sense of being 'happy to trade with the Nazis' after Hitler annexed the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia but before he attacked an ally they had an actual written obligation to defend? You come off as somewhat prejudiced and bitter. I don't think the WWII generation had these prejudices, they were all too busy fighting for survival side by side.
:lol: Where do you think I got these prejudices? But I don't have them really as I thought my grandparents a bit harsh on the American, although they never forgave you for rebuilding and harbouring the Nazi and Nip, and I only ever dust them off when listening to another Yank spouting on about the war and the debt we owe, a debt we paid with interest mind you.

Mind you, you made a fair point about trade and treaties and I generally only raise it to the Yank who insists upon the 'we saved you' line when it was only in your self-interest and not the great moral act that the Yank often tries to imply. Its also annoying that the Soviets get ignored as without their 20,000,000 dead I think we'd still be on the beaches.
Sorry, VT always just puts me in a bad mood.

Interest was charged for post war loans, but no money was made on lend lease, most of it wasn't returned and most of that debt forgiven. I always thought the U.S. was neutral by law and lend lease was a legal way to get around the neutrality acts by those, like FDR, who were sympathetic to the U.K.. Saying that it was a way to make money, as someone posted, is a bit of a stretch, even for the staunchest anti-american.

I would never say the U.K. owes a debt out of WWII as they were the only thing between total victory for Hitler from 1939 to 1941, so I see where that would piss you off.
Post Reply