Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Welu on 15 Oct 2012, 07:39

Title: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 15 Oct 2012, 07:39
I hope this is different enough from the Vitriolic Letters thread. A place discuss peeves and what rules you would put in place if you had the power to do so.

My first example:
Ear/headphones should be mandatory if you intend on listening to anything through a phone/MP3 player/computer in an area where there are other people, such as public transport or classrooms where music is allowed. Forgetting or lack of supplied ear/headphones is not an excuse

Edit: Title changed because this one is better.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Barmymoo on 15 Oct 2012, 07:43
"Inside voices" or whispering must be used for all conversations taking place outside private residences after 11pm, unless the location in question is a public venue in which noise is expected (such as a club or pub). Shouting in the streets or corridors of communal residences is not permitted and should be punished by temporary removal of vocal apparatus after sunset for repeat offenders (I wish this were actually possible).
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Castlerook on 15 Oct 2012, 07:48
Quietly chewing should be mandatory. There are few things more offputting or disgusting to me than hearing someone eating from across the room.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: VonKleist on 15 Oct 2012, 08:27
The rules for speaking should go for making public phone-calls too. Also they should be as brief as possible and no private disgusting or inappropriate information shall be passed ("YAh, Ive got this really big thing to tell ya! Im pregnant and I don't know wether its X's or Y's").

Goddamnit, people. Have a little dignity.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Oct 2012, 09:09
Oh my god chewing noises. And just general mouth sounds. Keep that shit quiet, keep as much of your food and spit as possible in your own mouth, for the love of my sanity. Also, no speaking with your mouth full of food, if at all possible. If you must talk with anything in your mouth, please try being polite and covering your mouth so I do not have to see whatever is in there.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Zingoleb on 15 Oct 2012, 10:26
And just general mouth sounds. Keep that shit quiet. Also, no speaking with your mouth, if at all possible. If you must talk with your mouth, please try being polite and covering your mouth so I do not have to see.

I'm more of an 'everybody stop talking period' type of person.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: BeoPuppy on 15 Oct 2012, 10:37
I have a thing with the superbowl. Some people call that the worldchampionship football ... but only north american teams get to play. So, it's at best a national title.

Also: fat coaches.

Both should be outlawed and/or shot.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Oct 2012, 10:45
Oh my god chewing noises. And just general mouth sounds. Keep that shit quiet

I'm so sorry, I just can't keep it quiet, I have one of the loudest mouths there is.  I keep it shut when I chew, but dammit, everyone at the table can still hear me.  It resonates.  God forbid I eat something crunchy...


And yes, this is one of my wife's pet peeves, why do you ask? 



Most of mine center around language.  Mispronounciations, especially.  Nuke-you-lar, in particular.  Bush II was a LOOOOONG eight years.

Oh, and the one that gets me yelling at the radio/TV?  When some commentator uses "stick and carrot" to mean "reward and punishment".  That is NOT what it means.  At least, not originally.  The carrot was at the end of a stick, hanging in front of the mule, making the reward unattainable until the journey was done.  Note that, at the end of the day, you had to give the carrot to the mule, or they wouldn't fall for it the next day... they're not stupid, just stubborn.  A stick-and-carrot approach is a system of incentives that promote movement towards a goal, with rewards along the way. 

The only thing beating a mule with a stick will get you is a bite or a kick.  No movement, that's for sure...


If more incentive programs actually worked this way, the world would be a much better place. 
Title: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Oct 2012, 12:14
There used to be a term for this stuff: "There oughta be a law!"
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: LTK on 15 Oct 2012, 12:30
That seems like a much better title for this thread.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: ackblom12 on 15 Oct 2012, 12:32
Cupboard doors should be closed once you're done with them upon penalty of death.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Omega Entity on 15 Oct 2012, 12:32
People who say they're going to do something, and then fail to follow through.
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Papersatan on 15 Oct 2012, 12:33
Cupboard doors should be closed once you're done with them upon penalty of death.

Cupboards should not even *have* doors. 

Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Oct 2012, 12:35
But then the kitchen, or wherever, looks all messy and cluttered.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 15 Oct 2012, 15:07
Only if the inside of the cupboard is messy and cluttered.

~ ~

Just because you're the oldest in the class by fifteen years, it does not mean you have authority or a special relationship with the tutor. Appropriate punishment is sitting in the corner with a Dunce Cap and duct tape over the gob for the rest of the day.

Somewhat related: Just because you're the oldest worker, it does not mean you do not have seniority. Especially not if I've been working here longer than you and I officially have higher responsibilities.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 15 Oct 2012, 15:59
There ought to be a law against acquiring more road vehicles than you can park off-street. In Singapore, I believe, you are not permitted to register a vehicle unless you can prove that you have off-street parking for it. There is much to be said for this idea, especially for caravans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_trailer), horse-floats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_trailer), trailer-boats, and other bulky leisure vehicles. The side-streets around my home, are normally parked out along both sides to the point where actual progress along the street is severely impeded, should you meet another vehicle coming the opposite way down what is effectively a single lane between two rows of parked cars. It is especially not fun going head-to-head with an oncoming car when you're on a bicycle.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Oct 2012, 16:04
TOBAL about people who drive 55 in the left lane on the freeway. HINT: If people are passing you on the right, YOU'RE IN THE WRONG LANE, BUDDY!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Oct 2012, 20:20
There ought to be a law

TOBAL

That was quick! 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 15 Oct 2012, 20:39
Politicians should be forced to take a basic IQ test and tell the results of said test to the general public. Maybe it would stop so many morons from being elected in the first place if wh had this kind of checks system...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 15 Oct 2012, 20:41
They're smarter than they seem - it's just that they keep on tailoring their messages to the audience. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 15 Oct 2012, 20:44
They're smarter than they seem

I need proof... Proooooooffffffffffff.... :P

Also, organizations like PETA should not be allowed to kill the hopes and dreams of children like they did in Pokemon: Black and Blue. That game was my childhood man. You don't get to fuck with it like that. Not cool...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 16 Oct 2012, 00:43
Government ministers ought to be required to sit a high school level exam in the subject area relating to their policy area, and if they don't get an A they will be replaced with a high school student who did.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 16 Oct 2012, 04:05
"I support Team Plasma"

...Right.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 16 Oct 2012, 06:31
Government ministers ought to be required to sit a high school level exam in the subject area relating to their policy area, and if they don't get an A they will be replaced with a high school student who did.
I've suggested in a newspaper editorial that elected local officials should be required to play Sim City. It might have more punch if I'd actually played it myself.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Oct 2012, 07:09
There ought to be a law
TOBAL
That was quick!

Full disclosure: back in the 1970's and 1980's, the Milwaukee Journal had, as a comic in its daily funny pages (called "The Green Sheet"), a simple two panel comic called "There Oughta Be A Law!"

A lot of the gags were user-submitted, like someone who noted that some believe that it is a crime if you hang the toilet tissue with the paper hanging outside (away from the holder), or hang it with the paper hanging inside (towards the holder). But the greatest crime would be leaving an empty toilet paper roll in the holder.

Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 16 Oct 2012, 07:48
TOBAL that people should not be allowed to chew gum while preparing food.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 16 Oct 2012, 19:31
Pretty sure it is against health code, IIRC, but good luck enforcing that at home.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 16 Oct 2012, 19:36
Government ministers ought to be required to sit a high school level exam in the subject area relating to their policy area, and if they don't get an A they will be replaced with a high school student who did.

Most adults won't pass those exams and students who pass those exams don't necessarily know much outside of those exams.

There should be a law against people writing laws about education who have no educational background.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Oct 2012, 00:27
I'm doubtful about the qualifications of many with backgrounds in education...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 17 Oct 2012, 01:26
No one should be in government ever, we're all too stupid.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 17 Oct 2012, 03:50
No one should make sports coat type of jackets or anything resembling formal wear made of jersey... it just looks terribly awful.

Yes, Im looking at you, Hennes & Mauritz

Oh, and heres the rules for public transport
not
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/the-standards-on-this-public-bus-are-not-low-enough/
Title: Re: Pet peeve based rules
Post by: Patrick on 18 Oct 2012, 03:04
Also, no speaking with your mouth full of food, if at all possible. If you must talk with anything in your mouth, please try being polite and covering your mouth so I do not have to see whatever is in there.

You don't want to have a meal with me. I just chipmunk-cheek whatever I'm eating and talk around it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Rockman on 18 Oct 2012, 04:19
TOBAL against bad coffee.

Got my coffee from Dunkin' Donuts yesterday morning, was surprised how terrible it was given most of the coffee I get from them is at least okay.  This cup was not the worst ever, but definitely up there - the worst cup of coffee I've ever had remains one I bought on the ferry to Ellis Island on a field trip twelve years ago.  Usually I don't remember things more than ten years ago with that level of detail, but I still vividly remember that coffee and how awful it was.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 05:15
I have been worrying about bad coffee recently - Jens is coming to stay for Christmas and he has strong opinions about coffee. I have out-of-date freeze-dried instant coffee from Morrisons.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Rockman on 18 Oct 2012, 06:13
Won't-drink-instant-coffee strong opinions, or only-buys-coffee-from-specialty-beaneries strong opinions?

My opinions actually aren't all that strong, it just really gets under my skin when I have noticeably bad coffee.  You've only just recently woken up, you're relying on this drink with a wonderful little drug in it that'll make you feel better (even if it's just to sate your addiction), and then it's like "oh hey we were gonna give you that cup of coffee you wanted but HERE HAVE OUR MIXTURE OF WATER AND ACID INSTEAD"

I don't think I've ever been served coffee like that in someone else's home.  Even if it's just from a Keurig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Cup) I don't mind it at all.  Unless it's a pumpkin K-Cup.  I'm pretty sure pumpkin-flavored K-Cups are what they make you drink in Hell.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 06:18
I am not sure, the nuances of coffee consumption escape me - I drink my very rare coffees with sugar and lashings of ginger beer milk.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 18 Oct 2012, 06:28
Or get a cafetiera or french press and some half decent espresso and anyone who complains beyond that gets hot coffee to the crotch  :-)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Rockman on 18 Oct 2012, 06:37
Or get a cafetiera or french press and some half decent espresso and anyone who complains beyond that gets hot coffee to the crotch  :-)

Ha! That too - all French-press coffee I've had has tasted great to me, but even if it wasn't? I'd keep my mouth shut after a threat like that.  :-D
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 06:38
There's absolutely no point me buying any kind of complex coffee equipment. I have had the same jar of instant coffee for three years and it's still more than half full. I just don't drink coffee at home unless I'm desperately tired and can't sleep for several hours. There are enough good coffee shops near here that we'll go out if Jens needs coffee! People don't come to visit me for the quality of the coffee (nor, for that matter, for the quality of the steak).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 18 Oct 2012, 07:11
Buy a box of coffee bags (http://www.coffeeperfection.com/coffee-bags.php) (you need a larger supermarket, the green box ones are the best); no equipment, and they are individually sealed so you can keep them for the next visitor or just let him take the spares home.  Cheaper than the ones with a built-in plastic filter, too.  I use them in the office.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Oct 2012, 07:20
There are also pot-sized bags that I've seen around here - and several restaurants use them as well, it's faster and easier than setting up the filter and grounds if you're running around at meal rush. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Rockman on 18 Oct 2012, 07:21
TOBAL against not having a French press in your home!  :-P

I kid, I kid.

TOBAL against Steam ads popping up after you close a game.  They've prompted me to buy three games in the last two weeks.  Usually I only buy three or four games a year.  I haven't finished any of them.  I'm already thinking about buying more this weekend.  I think I have a problem.  Stop making it worse, Steam!  Curse you and your vast library!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 07:23
Here in Cambridge there is an unwritten law against not drinking tea. People are genuinely shocked when I say I don't really drink tea - they can't understand how I can possibly cope with my degree and other commitments without it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Oct 2012, 07:27
Are you decaffeinated?  No coffee, no tea... in the US, younger people make up for that with Monster and Mountain Dew (more caffeine than espresso...)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 07:34
I have a tendency towards over-stimulation, and coffee can be a serious problem. Caffienated sugary drinks make it impossible for me to do anything for several hours sometimes, and can make me ill. I do drink mocha and sometimes flavoured coffees, but not often and not because I need to stay away in order to work; I have to be aware that I will not be productive for a while afterwards.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 18 Oct 2012, 07:36
I read somewhere recently that coffee/tea/Dew/Monster/whatever very quickly becomes an addiction that can cause fairly serious withdrawal symptoms; that's why you need it at around the same time each day. A morning pick-me-up is actually just to get you back to how you would have been if you had never started drinking it regularly.

Dunno how true that is. I've never liked tea or coffee myself so don't have much experience, though I know my Spanish teacher was like a bear with a sore head if she hadn't had a cup of caffeine that morning.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 18 Oct 2012, 08:21
Caffeine is definitely addictive and those who consume it regularly go through symptoms of withdrawal, one of the most common of which is headache.  The secret ingredient in Excedrin, marketed at the pain killer for headaches, is caffeine.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Oct 2012, 08:25
I once accused my mum of being addicted to caffeine and she determined to go three days without drinking tea to prove me wrong. After three hours she felt so ill she had to have a cup.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 18 Oct 2012, 08:45
Yep, I'm working through caffiene withdrawal now. I still drink a little soda each day but not nearly as much as I did. And I'm still getting headaches almost every day. I do use Excedrin if I really need it, because no other medications seem to help much. But I try to avoid that as well, because of the caffeine, though I'm guessing it's less than in soda?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Oct 2012, 08:51
Check the label, but I'm pretty sure it's a massive dose, which will only help with withdrawl symptoms  temporarily. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 18 Oct 2012, 08:53
The Mayo clinic says 12 oz of cola has 35mg of caffeine and a cup of coffee has 95-200mg.   One Excedrin has 65mg.  Most people take two at a time, as that is the recommended dosage for adults. So taking two Excedrin is 130mg of caffeine, or more than 3 sodas' worth, or one average cup of coffee's worth. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 18 Oct 2012, 09:01
Aw damn it. No more Excedrin for me. That explains why I'm still getting headaches this far into trying to quit caffeine.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 18 Oct 2012, 09:01
I've heard they include the caffeine because it helps it get through your system faster? I don't know where I heard that, though, so it may be wrong.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Edith on 18 Oct 2012, 09:04
Tea has less caffeine than coffee and also has theobromine which has caffeine-like effects which could also help. If you can wean yourself onto weaker and weaker tea instead of soda/coffee, it could help. Cutting coffee cold turkey usually means you'll have massive headaches for about 2 weeks, but at the end of that time you should be symptom free, from what I've read.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 18 Oct 2012, 09:07
I don't drink any coffee or tea, just soda, pretty much. I'm trying to drink a lot more water to hopefully make me feel less miserable but it is not doing so well.

TOBAL passive-aggressive behaviour from adults who clearly know better in a professional setting. Or, really, anywhere ever.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 18 Oct 2012, 09:11
I once accused my mum of being addicted to caffeine and she determined to go three days without drinking tea to prove me wrong. After three hours she felt so ill she had to have a cup.
Shame she didn't stick to it, because the withdrawal symptoms only last for 48 hours, max.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 18 Oct 2012, 12:47
I get caffeine withdrawl occasionally, I have to make sure that when I go out of town to events I bring soda with me otherwise it is miserable after I finish fighting (usually the fighting keeps me from having a headache, but as soon as I stop for the day a headache forms).

I am okay with this addiction though because I like soda.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Asterus on 18 Oct 2012, 12:50
Weird, my body seems to have just made a personal note to itself reading "no more of this caffeine shit. If you bring it in, I'll give you a headache until it's gone". I don't know when I noticed it, but it must have begun after I realized my college had a soda fountain included in the meal plan and binged for at least a month.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 18 Oct 2012, 13:01
Are you decaffeinated?  No coffee, no tea... in the US, younger people make up for that with Monster and Mountain Dew (more caffeine than espresso...)

Do you have any idea how many cans of Mountain Dew I have in my room, hint it is over 100
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 18 Oct 2012, 13:23
I dunno, I suppose I get grumpy if I don't have coffee in the morning but its just one of those little rituals that make up the day. Call it addiction, I don't mind.
I once had so much coffee my stomach went crazy for a couple of weeks and wouldn't accept much anything than zwieback. Since then I keep it to 1 or 2 cups a day.
I only rarely drink soda though because my parents were strict like that and wouldn't let us have any except as a treat.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 18 Oct 2012, 13:44
I only rarely drink soda though because my parents were strict like that and wouldn't let us have any except as a threat.
What I read. You must have had some really strict parents!

There oughta be a law that treats all psychoactive drugs equally. Seriously guys, caffeine might be the least harmful psychoactive drug in existence, but being addicted to anything is not good. If you think you need caffeine to wake up, or to stay focused, it's just the habituation that keeps you sluggish, and the caffeine only serves to bring you back to normal levels of alertness. Avoid caffeine for a few days, and you'll be rid of it completely.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Rockman on 18 Oct 2012, 15:28
I was completely caffeine-free for two years.  Not a drop from beginning of senior year in high school to beginning of sophomore year in college.  I don't remember exactly at this point but everyone here seems to be saying withdrawal symptoms for about 2-3 days and that sounds about right.

During withdrawal I kept daydreaming and picturing a can of Coke and imagining the sound when you open one.  Never mind the headaches.  Not fun.

I don't think I'm as badly addicted now as I was as a teenager -- now if I forget to have coffee in the morning (which often happens on my day off) I'll get pretty mild headaches and not until evening.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 18 Oct 2012, 17:46
I've never been one for drinking lots of tea, except when I'm painting. Most of the time, its something like a cup at 4pm and then another at around 8pm. Often enough though, I go several days or weeks without even thinking "Hmmm, best have some tea."

I'll stop rambling now.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Oct 2012, 21:23
I love tea and coffee, but I don't like it hot. I'll only drink it iced. But ice is all I add, I don't put milk or sugar in it. Everyone thinks I'm strange for drinking black iced coffee (I once had a guy at Dunkin' Donuts ask if I was sure I didn't want cream or sugar in it, and then try to convince me that I did), but it's delicious.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Oct 2012, 22:30
I'm only able to drink tea, there's an amino acid in coffee that I have a strong negative reaction to - which is a shame, I love the stuff. 

But the tea has to be hot.  Can't stand the stuff iced. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Asterus on 18 Oct 2012, 23:26
TOBAL that actually makes people legally responsible for investigating claims and talking directly to people suspected of infringing copyright laws, so shit like this (http://wpmu.org/serverbeach-takes-1-45-million-edublogs-offline-just-12-hours-after-sending-through-a-lame-dmca-notice/) doesn't happen  :x
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 19 Oct 2012, 01:39
I once accused my mum of being addicted to caffeine and she determined to go three days without drinking tea to prove me wrong. After three hours she felt so ill she had to have a cup.
Shame she didn't stick to it, because the withdrawal symptoms only last for 48 hours, max.

She doesn't think it's a problem to be addicted to tea - I can see her point, it is probably the least harmful thing to be addicted to. But I agree with your later point, any addiction is in my view inherently harmful. Which is why I'm trying to wean myself off sugar and comfort eating in general!

I can't drink caffiene after about 2pm or I have serious difficulty sleeping. It's probably partly because I drink it so seldom that it has a strong effect, and also because I'm generally prone to being highly affected by things (this summer I got unable-to-stand-up drunk on one glass of white wine, as Edith can attest to).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 19 Oct 2012, 02:06

What I read. You must have had some really strict parents!


Nah.. I mean, maybe in some respects like healthy food and that we didn't have satellite-tv until I was ten or so.
I was free to buy as much soda as I wanted with my pocket money, I guess.
A lot of people tell me they find the sparkling Lipton Ice Tea disgusting but that was my favorite soda as a kid :)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 19 Oct 2012, 04:12
We didn't have fizzy drinks, sweets or television when I was a child. Once I was about eight and allowed to cross the road to the post office on my own to spend my tiny amount of pocket money I did sometimes buy myself chocolate (which would be given to us as treats or presents anyway) but as a vegetarian I didn't want chewy sweets anyway. Fizzy drinks were a novelty for a short while but I dislike them now and I only watch a couple of hours of television a week these days, if that.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 19 Oct 2012, 04:26
TOBAL against sitting on the floor of a narrow hallway with your legs spread out across. Especially a group of multiple ones taking up both sides of the hallway. If you are going to do it, at least pull your legs in when multiple people are trying to walk through the hall. If you give death glares because I have the audacity to need to get to the other side of the hallway, I will step on your legs.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 19 Oct 2012, 04:28
My paternal grandfather was (still is, really) something of an arse. My father was given pocket money 11 pence/week by one of his grandparents. His father took 10 pence of it "because [my father] would only spend it".

TOBAL against sitting on the floor of a narrow hallway with your legs spread out across. Especially a group of multiple ones taking up both sides of the hallway. If you are going to do it, at least pull your legs in when multiple people are trying to walk through the hall. If you give death glares because I have the audacity to need to get to the other side of the hallway, I will step on your legs.

I'll help you. I think I still have a pair of bladed football boots somewhere.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 19 Oct 2012, 04:31
Kick the shit out of them!

Nah, but I like to walk really close to those people to make a point that its not an appropriate place to sit like that.

Sometimes teenagers hang out on the stairs between the tram station and the train station..
WHat the fuck do you think will happen if you sit in the middle of the stairs leading up from the tram to the station of a city of 1 mio.?? Theres people all over the place and you should have your shins kicked for sitting there. Christ dammit.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 19 Oct 2012, 04:31
We didn't have fizzy drinks, sweets or television when I was a child. Once I was about eight and allowed to cross the road to the post office on my own to spend my tiny amount of pocket money I did sometimes buy myself chocolate (which would be given to us as treats or presents anyway) but as a vegetarian I didn't want chewy sweets anyway. Fizzy drinks were a novelty for a short while but I dislike them now and I only watch a couple of hours of television a week these days, if that.
Wait, what do chewy sweets have to do with being a vegetarian? And when exactly did you choose to become a vegetarian?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 19 Oct 2012, 04:33
The gelatin content, I should imagine.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 19 Oct 2012, 04:34
The protein in the gelatine comes from animals!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 19 Oct 2012, 05:19
TOBAL against sitting on the floor of a narrow hallway with your legs spread out across. Especially a group of multiple ones taking up both sides of the hallway. If you are going to do it, at least pull your legs in when multiple people are trying to walk through the hall. If you give death glares because I have the audacity to need to get to the other side of the hallway, I will step on your legs.

Ergh, YES. Not gonna lie, when this happens in uni, I put on my mean face. It works really well when I'm dressed up because of teaching, because then I get mistaken for a prof and you better believe they pull their legs in faster. Tee hee. When I'm not, I just walk over people (step between legs, not on them) and the look of shock and confusion is priceless. But I would give up my amusement just so I can keep walking down the hall without worrying someone is going to try and trip me.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 19 Oct 2012, 06:05
I step between their legs and people do, "Ugh. Bitch." at me for it. I really want to say to them, "Please explain to me how I am being the awkward one here?"

Sort of related: Yesterday I tripped on some stairs and hurt my ankle. My boyfriend helped me sit on the stairs while he went outside to call his mum to pick us up (no signal indoors). I tried to cling against the wall as close as I could to stay out of the way, leaving just under a metre of space. A woman goes by, walks about three steps on and then goes, I think it was meant to be under her breath, "Yeah, just hang out on the stairs why don't you."
I understand someone sitting on the steps is annoying but when they've got tears down their face and are nursing their ankle, do you really think they're just being ignorant? I know there's really no way she could have known I tripped but it still pissed me off. About fifteen people passed me and the only one who asked if I was okay was a worker in the building. I do appreciate them getting someone to help though.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 19 Oct 2012, 06:09
TOBAL that actually makes people legally responsible for investigating claims and talking directly to people suspected of infringing copyright laws, so shit like this (http://wpmu.org/serverbeach-takes-1-45-million-edublogs-offline-just-12-hours-after-sending-through-a-lame-dmca-notice/) doesn't happen  :x
Technically, Serverbeach was an infringing party by hosting the content.  Serverbeach may have handled it poorly, but the lawyers for Pearsons were directly contacting an infringing party. The problem with asking lawyers to directly contact the uploader of infringing copyright is that they frequently have no means to do so.  In this case the actual violator, in the traditional sense would be the teacher who made the site in question.  There is likely no contact information for said teacher on the website in question. The compromise from the DMCA between allowing violations to remain online unchecked and sueing every host of user content on the web was the DMCA violation notice system we have.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 19 Oct 2012, 06:24
LTK, I've been vegetarian all my life - both of my parents are. Before anyone chimes in with "clearly you were brainwashed" or any of the idiocy I've been dealing with my whole life, from the age of about 12 I was free to choose to cook my own meals and I could have requested meat, and now I do all my own shopping and continue to be vegetarian. I'm choosing it every day (I wasn't suggesting your question was rude or idiotic - I just get a lot of "that's not fair, they should have given you the choice!" when I tell people I was raised veggie and it's nonsense, you can say the same the other way round).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 19 Oct 2012, 09:54
May, I think you are my British twin... That sounds just about exactly like my childhood.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: dr. nervioso on 19 Oct 2012, 10:07
I want to meet my Briitsh twin - wait I probably wouldn't. He'd probably be creepy

Anyways, caffeine doesn't really affect me. Sugar does make me a little bit crazy
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 19 Oct 2012, 11:07
The protein in the gelatine comes from animals!
Delicious, delicious pony hooves...

TOBAL about teachers rambling on about conspiracies (wile presenting them as fact) instead of actually teaching.  :x Damn you man, I'm paying a few thousand dollars (Er... going into debt by a few thousand dollars) a year to learn something relevant to the subject (German) that I'm learning about! I don't care if a French Poodle was cloned and that some people think this means that there are human clones as well, this does not help me spreche Deutch!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 19 Oct 2012, 11:14
Ponies might be about the only animal whose hooves aren't used for gelatine... I could be wrong though!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Gnomes2169 on 19 Oct 2012, 11:27
Anything with hooves should work...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 19 Oct 2012, 11:34
My father's best friend (a country rector) used to make stew with pig's trotters.  You could find some nice meat in them if you looked.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 19 Oct 2012, 12:04
Ponies might be about the only animal whose hooves aren't used for gelatine... I could be wrong though!

That's because they're used for glue!

...And that's sad.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 19 Oct 2012, 12:10
 :(
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 19 Oct 2012, 15:15
There oughta be a law that treats all psychoactive drugs equally. Seriously guys, caffeine might be the least harmful psychoactive drug in existence, but being addicted to anything is not good. If you think you need caffeine to wake up, or to stay focused, it's just the habituation that keeps you sluggish, and the caffeine only serves to bring you back to normal levels of alertness. Avoid caffeine for a few days, and you'll be rid of it completely.

I'm cool with that, I fuckin love shrooms
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lupercal on 19 Oct 2012, 15:57
My father's best friend (a country rector) used to make stew with pig's trotters.  You could find some nice meat in them if you looked.

Totally unrelated but is your avatar that kid from Monster Rancher?

Off-cuts and offal are making somewhat of a comeback. I mean, I steak and kidney pie and I'm pretty sure I like liver. Also, if you don't eat the brain then how else do you gain the animal's power?

TOBAL where people who try to get onto the Tube before other people get off of it are shot back onto the platform and banned from using trains forever. Have fun on the bus you impatient turds.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 19 Oct 2012, 15:59
I'm cool with that, I love fuckin shrooms

How I read your post. 



Not quite how I picture you...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 20 Oct 2012, 02:48
TOBAL against people who insist that "if there are letters in it, then it isn't real maths".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Oct 2012, 07:49
I once knew a guy who insisted that "if there are numbers in it, then it isn't real maths".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 20 Oct 2012, 08:15
You know, I thought of Pilchard's statement today, and figured that if there are absolutely no letters in it, it isn't real math.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 08:20
OK, I'm confused. If Method of Madness' reference to math has an extra letter in it, is it realer?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 20 Oct 2012, 08:29
If I understand you correctly, then no.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 20 Oct 2012, 08:41
If the extra letter is "i", then no. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Oct 2012, 10:00
OK, I'm confused. If Method of Madness' reference to math has an extra letter in it, is it realer?
I'm guessing you're talking about the s? Maths makes more sense than math,  since you never see the singular form of "mathematics" used, why would it be singular in the shortened word?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 20 Oct 2012, 10:24
Generally, UK and former colonies use "maths", while US (and Canada, it rubs off) use "math"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 20 Oct 2012, 10:30
Math already seems plural? Like I'm never thinking singularly when I think about math. When I think singularly, I call it by what type of math it is, like algebra, calculus, addition, etc.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 20 Oct 2012, 10:34
Mathematics is an uncountable noun, like physics. You can't pluralize it, so abbreviating it to math seems more sensible.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Oct 2012, 12:05
If the extra letter is "i", then no.

Or "j" (my degree is in engineering).

(For those that don't know, electrical engineers use "i" for current, so use "j" for sqrt(-1) instead.)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 20 Oct 2012, 12:29
The only thing I can add to the discussion about the spelling of math(s) is that I can only pronounce it like "mass". If I try to enunciate it comes out "mats".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Oct 2012, 12:38
A few years ago, before Oxford uni reorganised all its email addresses to get rid of a distinction between long and short forms (my department had clinical-pharmacology.oxford.ac.uk and clinpharm.ox.ac.uk, for instance), the long and short forms for the mathematics department were math.oxford.ac.uk and maths.ox.ac.uk!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 20 Oct 2012, 13:07
I pronounce it maffs, which might be easier to say?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Oct 2012, 13:20
I say math and write maths.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 20 Oct 2012, 13:37
I pronounce it maffs, which might be easier to say?

I used to do that but I'd get heavily mocked for it. Rather irritating because I'm from an area where it's not uncommon for it to be said that way. It's just that my accent isn't common.

TOBAL that if you're talking to someone with an unfamiliar accent, I am personally grand with it if you ask something to the effect of, "Where are you from?" (Not that everyone is okay with that question, so mind that.) However when I answer, "I'm from here." it is annoying to say, "Well, where are your parents from?" or even worse, "No. You can't be." and then when I go on to say I've lived here all my life, as in this one town, it is not okay for you to argue with me that I must be lying or have some kind of foreign aspect to my family line.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 20 Oct 2012, 13:42
maths.ox.ac.uk!

This is hilarious
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Omega Entity on 20 Oct 2012, 14:12
I pronounce it maffs, which might be easier to say?

TOBAL that if you're talking to someone with an unfamiliar accent, I am personally grand with it if you ask something to the effect of, "Where are you from?" (Not that everyone is okay with that question, so mind that.) However when I answer, "I'm from here." it is annoying to say, "Well, where are your parents from?" or even worse, "No. You can't be." and then when I go on to say I've lived here all my life, as in this one town, it is not okay for you to argue with me that I must be lying or have some kind of foreign aspect to my family line.

Would it be appropriate to ask you where your accent comes from, then?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Oct 2012, 14:38
TOBAL about people who derail threads with Maths! ;)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 20 Oct 2012, 14:46
Would it be appropriate to ask you where your accent comes from, then?

Sort of. It's a fair enough question but my genuine answer is that I don't know. I'm told my accent is American, sometimes English, even though I've lived in the same Northern Irish town all my life and both my parents and one brother are Irish, my other brother was also born in this same town. There's no environmental reason I can see why my accent is so different compared to the rest of my family. I use all the same terminology and local slang as them.

I'm not that bothered by the question itself, it's the existence of follow up questions that bug me. It's almost always the exact same discussion when I meet a new person and it gets frustrating.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 20 Oct 2012, 15:16
My friend speaks with an accent that most people assume is American. She's Scottish, part Irish, lives in England and occasionally Germany. No Americans in sight.

TOBAL against people using toilet paper to dry their hands - we keep running out by Sunday lunchtime.

TOBAL also against leaving pubic hairs on the toilet seat.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 15:23
TOBAL about people who derail threads with Maths! ;)
Would lack of intent be exculpatory? I was making what I thought was a joke about an extra letter added to "math."

And after a couple of years overseas in the 60s, I now ask visitors, "Where is your native place?" Seems more polite than "Where're you from?" Place and accent became a little confusing when talking to Barmymoo, though 'enry 'iggins would have sorted it in a second.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 20 Oct 2012, 15:49
I have that problem - I'm not really "from" anywhere.  I never spent more than 4 years in any one state, except Indiana (15 years of college) and now central PA, where I moved in '95.  But my accent was pretty well set by college.  A mish-mash of Jersey, Ohio, upstate NY, and MD. 

So yeah, pretty unidentifiable. 

TOBAL against time limits on tutoring sessions when you're trying to teach trig substitution...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Omega Entity on 20 Oct 2012, 16:27
I like to try and guess the accents, when I encounter them. I live in a city, but it's not a large city by any means, so I guess it seems a bit more interesting when we get people into the store that have a different accent. One family that comes in, the mother is from Scotland, and she was tickled pink that I could distinguish it - apparently it was often confused for Irish.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 20 Oct 2012, 16:33
TOBAL also against leaving pubic hairs on the toilet seat.
I wouldn't make a law against that specifically because there are a LOT of worse things you can leave on a toilet seat, and almost all of them are worse than little strands of lifeless keratin.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 16:42
Accents: I've spent most of my life in Michigan, minus a couple of years in India, three in the Army, though stateside, and four years in high school outside NYC. For years, back in Michigan, I was flattered when someone asked if I was from New York. I think I must have dropped R's, maybe as an affectation. It apparently ended; maybe from embarrassment. Later on, in choir, our director chastised us collectively for our Michigan aaaaan sound. It helps a singer to walk away from the chorus and listen. When I did, that "aaaa" sounded awful. Other than that, I have no accent, none at all.

Pubic hair: Curly little strands of lifeless keratin don't have little things clinging on for dear life?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 17:48
Pubic hair: Curly little strands of lifeless keratin don't have little things clinging on for dear life?

Googling: Apparently not. Seems that nothing can be transmitted via toilet seat or at least it's entirely unlikely.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 20 Oct 2012, 17:59
Re: accents - It is completely possible to live somewhere and have an accent that is different from most of the people in the area! I have a friend who is from a small town in Texas and you'd think she'd never been to the south in her life based on her accent. Also her dad has one, but she and her sister don't really.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 18:47
Re: accents - It is completely possible to live somewhere and have an accent that is different from most of the people in the area! I have a friend who is from a small town in Texas and you'd think she'd never been to the south in her life based on her accent. Also her dad has one, but she and her sister don't really.
Anyone care to speculate on how that happens?

Seems to me that if accents are the result of listening to those around you speaking, the "absence" of one, i.e., speaking with a different accent than those around you, must be the result of television or listening to another's speech and wanting to imitate it.

I might have related this in the forum: 2-3 years after high school in NY, I was stationed in South Dakota. I came home to White Plains for a week and dated a cute girl from the Bronx every night I was home. I went back to Rapid City with an accent I hadn't had when I left. It was gone in 48 hours. I was kind of sorry to see it go. Never saw it or the girl again.

It's my belief that U.S. television is gradually eroding language differences in the U.S..
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 20 Oct 2012, 19:22
One of my wife's friends suggested a law that whenever Clancy fans are caught talking about war as if it were a video game, they get drafted.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 20 Oct 2012, 19:38
I'd administer the oath.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 20 Oct 2012, 21:15
TOBAL allowing people to throw bricks and other sharp and dangerous objects at moronic teenagers screaming their heads off outside at 5am.

Not funny in the slightest.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 20 Oct 2012, 21:16
Just pretend that you live on a farm and that they are roosters.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 20 Oct 2012, 21:37
But you can throw things at roosters...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 20 Oct 2012, 21:39
It doesn't really help, though.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 21 Oct 2012, 00:29
TOBAL also against leaving pubic hairs on the toilet seat.
I wouldn't make a law against that specifically because there are a LOT of worse things you can leave on a toilet seat, and almost all of them are worse than little strands of lifeless keratin.

That is a good point. Let me alter it.

TOBAL that you clean the toilet seat after use if you leave anything on it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 21 Oct 2012, 07:30
I don't really have an accent at this point. My mom and sister have sort of a Bawlmer (Baltimore) accent, but I've actually tried hard not to pick that up. I was also in speech therapy as a child which changed how I say things.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 21 Oct 2012, 18:01
Generally, UK and former colonies use "maths", while US (and Canada, it rubs off) use "math"
Both the USA (or at least parts of it) and Canada are former colonies. I say "maths".

Everyone has an accent. I speak English with what I am sure an American would regard as an Australian accent, and Chinese with a Shanghai accent, both modified by deliberate training towards "standard educated" pronunciation. In China, strangers in Beijing think I come from Shanghai, while in Shanghai they often think I come from Beijing (my mother is a Beijinger, and Beijing dialect is the basis of Standard Chinese pronunciation), or sometimes Wuhan for some strange reason.

Like some latter-day Eliza Doolittle, I went to what were called "accent reduction" lessons as part of my ESL education. How far a hypothetical Henry Higgins would be able to identify any remaining Chinese influence on my English speech, I do not know. I have travelled to a number of regions of the USA (though not Baltimore as yet :-)), and nobody seems to have any trouble understanding me, which is the main thing.

Sometimes teenagers hang out on the stairs between the tram station and the train station.
TOBAL against riding up an escalator, stepping off, and then stopping dead to hold a discussion.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 21 Oct 2012, 18:43
Yes, I guess I should say that I do not have a strong accent - someone might be able to place me as coming from the east coast of the US, but they couldn't get much more specific.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 21 Oct 2012, 19:07
Re: accent reduction

I originally met my friend Huiming as her English tutor.  She could read and write English quite well, we worked on some grammar things, and some vocabulary, mostly nonstandard, but common words and uses (I taught her gonna, and Ima, for example). But a large part of what we did was reducing her very strong accent so that more people could easily understand her.  I was a bit self-conscience of that task.  I was helping her to change her accent to mirror mine, and while that was fine for the big tasks, like helping her hear the difference between 's' and 'th' and enunciate them better, there were some words and sounds that I don't have standard pronunciation on.  As I have said I have a nasal AAAHH sound for many 'o' sounds and 'a' sounds get pushed back in the mouth as well.  When she said my name it sounded a bit like 'Keht' to me, but I was aware that my hearing of an pronunciation of that sound differed, in the opposite direction from hers, from standard American pronunciation.  I never corrected her because she was still easy enough to understand, and I would have to standardize my own accent before I would really be any help. 

Related, my father had a coworker who learned Russian in college.  He had a professor who was a major stickler for pronunciation and did lots of drills in class to help them speak well.  There was a situation at work where they needed someone who spoke Russian to help someone, and he volunteered.  At the end of the conversation he was so happy when the person asked "how long have you lived in the US?" until when he explained he was born here and took Russian in college she replied, shocked "but you have such a strong Polish accent!" :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 21 Oct 2012, 19:20
It's not surprising if his professor was Polish, especially if he was the type to say that his pronunciation was the right way.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Omega Entity on 22 Oct 2012, 00:27
I've been told that I have excellent pronunciation in speaking Japanese, but I'm always paranoid that they're just being polite  :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: idontunderstand on 22 Oct 2012, 00:27
I took a course and learned RP English and achieved a pretty good level of "British" pronunciation. Then I realized everyone I talked to liked my Swedish accent better so I stuck with that instead..
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 22 Oct 2012, 00:28
(and Canada, it rubs off)

I wish. Canada has a gorgeous woman factory somewhere, I swear.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 22 Oct 2012, 08:07
Accent-wise, I've been told I sound like Joe Mantegna, that is to say, a strong Chicago accent, which is quite odd because I have no immediate American relatives. What happened was I had a bad speech impediment when I was about 5 or 6, so I went to a speech therapist, who was American. And around that age, I had a habit of mimicking people. And because I mimicked her accent for about 6 months or so, I've ended sounding like I'm from Chicago.

Which I prefer to be honest, because the typical Cork accent is actually fairly high and nasal sounding.

TOBAL against people letting their kids run around a supermarket by themselves.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 22 Oct 2012, 08:32
There oughta be a law against entertainment media adding sound effects to things that should be relatively, or completely, silent. I don't just mean 'funniest home videos' boinks and sproings - although they are the worst offender - I'm also talking about adding a sound to holstering a gun, opening a door, drawing a sword, stabbing someone who's wearing no armour whatsoever, or, worst of all, adding the sound of a crow when on the screen there's a blackbird.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 22 Oct 2012, 08:51
The crow is off screen. He's displeased that his part was given to the blackbird and wouldn't stop interrupting.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 22 Oct 2012, 10:06
I agree if the media is live-action. Although if things that should be silent are always left silent in animation, the scene sounds very empty. Things like doors opening or mundane sound effects can be left silent but anything dramatic needs some kind of UMPH sound other than dialogue/voice, even if it's a swell in the music.
The crow thing is just laziness to research the right sound.

TOBAL against people letting their kids run around a supermarket by themselves.

This. So hard. Especially if the parent's defence is, "They don't know any better!" when the child is toddler or older, therefore old enough to be taught right and wrong, or at least, "Stay by my side."
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 22 Oct 2012, 10:10
Almost anything that includes ferrets has the wrong sound for them. I've heard them purring like a cat and chittering like uh... something that's not a ferret. They dook, damn it!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 22 Oct 2012, 12:08
Usually right before they try to take your throat out. Or right before they take a nap. Whichever comes first.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 22 Oct 2012, 13:56
There oughta be a law against people using the word "hip" to mean cool or modern. I'm not against using old-fashioned terminology in general, but I am against using old-fashioned terms to call something new and exciting.  It's not the '50s anymore.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 25 Oct 2012, 17:53
Quietly chewing should be mandatory. There are few things more offputting or disgusting to me than hearing someone eating from across the room.
In Singapore, it's even stricter than that. Chewing gum is completely illegal except for medical use, on the order of a physician. Kinda like medical marijuana in the U.S.

TOBAL stating that children under 12 (arbitrary age) have a curfew, and if their parents are caught yanking them around Walmart or somewhere at 11pm, the parents will be fined. And publicly ridiculed.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 25 Oct 2012, 18:57
What's funny is that curfews don't usually apply if the parent is with their kid, at least I think.  Also...what do you mean medical use?  In what sense is chewing gum medicinal?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 25 Oct 2012, 19:10
Apparently (according to wikipedia, etc) Chewing Gum may be used as a type of dental therapy...I don't quite understand the particulars.

The law originated because EVERYTHING in Singapore (it IS a pretty small country) was getting gummed up, from pay phones to elevator buttons to fire alarms. It was much MUCH more of a problem than it is in the U.S.

TOBAL against slow drivers in the fast lane. I swear to God almighty. If there is a traffic jam and I am in the passing lane, stuck there, I do NOT want to see the far right lane cruising steadily along unless there was a goddamn car fire in the left lane up ahead. Normal hustle-bustle traffic is NOT supposed to fuck over the people who use the roads properly (I drive about 250 miles a day for work...it gets to me).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 25 Oct 2012, 20:34
Someone who has problems with a dry mouth (a hazard for dental health) might chew gum to encourage salivation.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 25 Oct 2012, 20:46
Like some latter-day Eliza Doolittle, I went to what were called "accent reduction" lessons as part of my ESL education. How far a hypothetical Henry Higgins would be able to identify any remaining Chinese influence on my English speech, I do not know. I have travelled to a number of regions of the USA (though not Baltimore as yet :-)), and nobody seems to have any trouble understanding me, which is the main thing.

If you had a detectable non-Australian accent, doesn't that excuse the people who complimented you on your English, if they could tell it was ESL?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 26 Oct 2012, 16:20
If there is a traffic jam and I am in the passing lane, stuck there, I do NOT want to see the far right lane cruising steadily along unless there was a goddamn car fire in the left lane up ahead. Normal hustle-bustle traffic is NOT supposed to fuck over the people who use the roads properly (I drive about 250 miles a day for work...it gets to me).

I have pontificated here before about the causes of traffic jams, but I will make a short point.  First, traffic jams spread backwards, at a pretty predictable rate and take much longer to disperse than they take to form.  When an accident has cleared up and all traces of it are gone, the traffic jam it caused will remain trailing backwards from that site for some time, leading people to be confused about what the cause was int he first place.  Also the cause need not even be an accident, just something that caused everyone to suddenly slow way down or stop.  Animals in the road, a single construction worker, one erratic driver.. things which will be even more undetectable to those suck a mile behind and 45 minutes later.   Second, the main cause of spontaneous traffic jams, and a contributing factor to the spread and longevity of ones with clear causes, is impatient drivers driving poorly in traffic jams.  If you hit your breaks, so do the 4 cars behind you, who don't know how hard they have to hit them and are likely to slow a little more and a little more suddenly than you, particularly if they were following too close, which it is likely in a high volume traffic situation they were.  The best tactic in a traffic jam is to drive smoothly and slowly, to not keep changing lanes because "that one it moving a bit faster now, no wait the one I was in is better back to it" Changing lanes requires the people in your new lane to slow down/stop to let you in and that disruption to their flow will ripple back making their lane slower behind you.  If the car in front of you speeds up suddenly, you speed up slowly, allowing a gap to form so that when they slam on their breaks, as they will, you can maintain your smooth slow speed, preventing, or at least minimizing their stop from chaining back.  Also, it is better for your blood pressure and anxiety, to just let go and drive slow.  Which rhymes so it ought to be in a bad PSA.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 26 Oct 2012, 19:29
If you had a detectable non-Australian accent, doesn't that excuse the people who complimented you on your English, if they could tell it was ESL?
It might, but I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt if I didn't suspect that their reaction had more to do with how I look than how I sound. I like to think that my English is good now, but I have sometimes wondered if it still projects otherness, at least at a subliminal level. No stranger has ever made such a remark after talking to me only on the phone as <my "English" name>, but someone who had never met me might feel it was not socially appropriate anyway, so that is hardly decisive. Short of wearing some Mission Impossible-style "white girl" disguise, it is difficult to separate people's reaction to my spoken English from their recognition of my ethnic appearance.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 26 Oct 2012, 20:42
That's significant.

Traffic jams: it's impossible to maintain the recommended distance from the car in front, but the closer everyone comes to that, the more stable the traffic flow is.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 26 Oct 2012, 21:50
Traffic jams: it's impossible to maintain the recommended distance from the car in front, but the closer everyone comes to that, the more stable the traffic flow is.
There have been closed-course tests on cars networked together, each keeping track of the distance from the one in front of it. They move as a beautiful synchronous convoy.

Now could we only tear up every road in America and put in RFID transmitters every 50 feet so that traffic jams would be a thing of the past? "Yes We Can!" (I'm looking at you, Congress. Get this on the budget. NOW.)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 26 Oct 2012, 22:12
"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are a called law firm; and that three or more become a congress."

~John Adams, as portrayed in 1776
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 26 Oct 2012, 22:25
If that is an actual quote, it REALLY should be on a bumper sticker. a BIG one.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 26 Oct 2012, 23:17
Unfortunately, no.  It's been attributed to him, but was actually written for the musical. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 27 Oct 2012, 08:29
Doesn't make it any less true. Though I thought Uncle Miltie used the term "committee" for "congress" when he stole told the joke.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 27 Oct 2012, 09:09
Considering when 1776 was written, the joke probably was stolen from Berle for the show...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 28 Oct 2012, 14:13
There oughta be a law that when a foreigner talks to you, you respond in the same language that they're speaking. If someone makes the effort to speak your native language to you, then it's disrespectful to just default to English or any other language that you know the other person understands better, otherwise that effort is wasted.

It should come as no surprise that I just came back from Germany.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 28 Oct 2012, 20:39
Was ist los, du nicht mgen sprechen ber ihre bratwrste auf den rcken?

There oughta be a law against parking lots being overcrowded. I know, it sounds a little ridiculous, but just like when the Fire Marshal says a room can only hold so many people, so must the parking lot. I swear to God, Walmart is worse to get through than midtown Manhattan.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 28 Oct 2012, 22:33
It's notoriously difficult to get Icelanders to speak Icelandic to a foreigner, but that's arguably pragmatism. The odds of a visitor knowing enough Icelandic for a useful conversation are negligible.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 28 Oct 2012, 22:49
Even worse is the look you get from the Japanese when you try to speak to them in their native tongue. My wife's Japanese instructor, an American, spoke fluently to a group of people in Kyoto, asking where the nearest train station was...they just looked at him like he couldn't understand him.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Omega Entity on 29 Oct 2012, 00:19
Maybe his accent was bad? Or they just didn't want to deal with foreigners... I've heard stories of varying degrees of treatment, from them being very polite to outright rude.

And speaking of parking lots, TOBAL that inconsiderate jackasses can't take up more than 1 (one!) parking space with their car. Seriously, nothing makes me want to key someone's car more than that kind of bullshit.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 29 Oct 2012, 03:30
I've taken to photographing cars parked stupidly with the intent of making a local Facebook page showing them, with license plates obscured obviously. Don't have the nerve to go through with it though.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 29 Oct 2012, 05:19
Last spring, I parked in a U of Arizona parking structure to attend the Tucson book festival. When I came back to the car, there was a piece of paper under the windshield wiper. Someone had scrawled, "You park like an asshole." By the time I saw it, I'd pulled out of the spot. But I can see I'm more careless at parking, at centering between the lines. The note is on my fridge. It probably ought to be back in the car.

A friend once showed me a "business card" which read, "If you fuck like you park, you'll never get it in."

I thought I might have told this before, but a search on park like an asshole suggests I probably didn't.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 06:15
You did tell at least Edith and I, and possibly Kat and Steve, in person - I asked about the note on your fridge. So that might be why you thought you'd posted about it :)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 06:50
Wait, do a bunch of you guys know each other in real life?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 06:59
I met up with a lot of people this summer when I stayed with Edith. I've met... maybe two dozen forumites, although a lot of them have left now. For a time there were lots of forum meetups going on, it was fun.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 29 Oct 2012, 07:03
Yeah, a lot of us have met up before. So if a few of us seem more familiar with others, it's not just because we've been here for forever. :-D

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are a called law firm; and that three or more become a congress."

~John Adams, as portrayed in 1776

The opening song is now stuck in my head. "Someone ought to open up a window!"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Oct 2012, 07:15
Wait, do a bunch of you guys know each other in real life?

Forum meetups were very much a thing among the group who are now on PJ (many of whom are now paired up in RL), arranged by having a thread here in the forum.  I tend to see the RL meetings that happen among people still here as a residue of that - but that may be unfair, as I know that some of the people that May has met were not around at that time, and I should stop thinking that way.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 07:23
Ahh. I guess I'm too new.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 29 Oct 2012, 07:31
The last "meet-up" that happened with people here, I'm guessing, was GenCon? But that's because several of us were planning on going anyways. I remember proposing it on PJ, but the majority went said no because Indianapolis and nerd conventions are boring or something. But before that I think the last big one was San Francisco and that was...2?...years ago.

Honestly, sometimes I found the really large scale ones a little inconvenient. They were always in a major city (Toronto, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, NYC), so travel and rooming was expensive unless you got to stay with a forumite who lived there. I love meeting people, but it's too just so expensive. But if some of you guys want to meet people, totally try to meet people! All of the meetups I've been to have been quite pleasant and I can definitely say I've made some good friends because of this place.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 07:36
I'm 100% in favour of meeting anyone who it's logistically possible for me to meet! Of the people I met up with this summer, four were people I'd met back in the PJ days already and some were new - Zing, Jwhouk, CardinalFang (a PJ person who I hadn't met before) and Redball. It's true that the PJ days' meetups were what made me comfortable with meeting internet people, though. I've also met people from my midwifery forum. Nary a one has ever tried to murder me in my sleep!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 08:06
I know very little about PJ.  I'm sure a few of us live in the NYC area, which would take away the need for (significant) travel and lodging.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 08:09
Sadly I'm unlikely to be back in the US for several years; a European meetup would be quite fun, we haven't really had one of those (I met three people in a pub in Leeds once but it was a very small, short meetup and they have all long since left this forum).

PJ is just another forum these days, but mostly populated by people who used to be on this forum. I feel that what makes the forum what it is today is the fact that those of us who were here then, including Paul, have learnt from what we didn't like about the old character of this forum and retained the good things.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 29 Oct 2012, 08:13
PJ?

I do feel that murderous midwifes would be hogging all the action on incoming and outgoing traffic.

Also: good band name.

There ought to be a law that prevents random people coming up to my kid and touching him. I mean, they wouldn't consider it cute if I did that to them, right? So what does age matter in that respect?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 29 Oct 2012, 08:28
Nary a one has ever tried to murder me in my sleep!

Perhaps we have tried, but just been so unsuccessful, so that you weren't even aware of our attempts...

PJ stands for Pocket Jury, it is was a term started by a group of people who used to post here. A forum/blog thingy was started with the same name and a bunch of people stopped posting here when they stated posting there.  Some people post both places.  I keep up with the pj people via IRC, but don't use the forum. I actually started posting here after the first Toroncon (the first meet up).  I was Stephen's plus one, so I am one of the few people who met fourmites in person before I knew them online. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 29 Oct 2012, 08:32
PJ = Pocket Jury. I mean, you could look it up, but it's very much the old character of this forum (which didn't work here, hence the exodus) and it isn't for everyone. I read it occasionally, but I almost never post there anymore.

The touching children thing reminds me: TOBAL against people walking up to pregnant women they don't know and touching their bellies. Even if you do know the woman, you still need to ask and you need to respect her decision when she says she doesn't want you touching her belly!

Edit: Kat posted when I was writing, so sorry about the redundancy!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 08:33
Is it at all QC related? Would it be out of line for me to go over there, or would my being on this forum be enough to join?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 29 Oct 2012, 08:55
It's not affiliated at all. (Actually I think most people there don't even like the comic.) It's mostly a large CHATTER board.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 08:56
Ah. I mostly stick to Comic/Discuss here, so I should probably just stay here.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 08:58
It's a web forum though. I mean, there isn't a law that says you can't join it. I don't know if they vet new members or anything. The old system was just that we were so cliquey and intolerant that new people got run out of town if they didn't fit in.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Oct 2012, 09:05
PJ is not advertised anywhere, so they get very few new members; thus there isn't the antagonism that built up between the QC and non-QC parts of this board.  However, it is very much an enclosed order, with a lot of in-jokes and good-natured but outwardly offensive joshing between members, and so I wouldn't suggest anyone new should consider joining the forum - some people may find a bit of interest in the articles on the web site itself, though (like my one on anime ;) which I'm working on a sequel to).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 29 Oct 2012, 09:07
Yeah, inclusive is not a word I'd use to describe PJ.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 29 Oct 2012, 10:36
Late to say I would be happy to go to a Ireland/UK or Europe meet, especially if it was held in Summer.

There ought to be a law that prevents random people coming up to my kid and touching him. I mean, they wouldn't consider it cute if I did that to them, right? So what does age matter in that respect?

Why would any one think that is okay? I suggest teaching your child to yell, "Stranger Danger!" loudly at them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Oct 2012, 10:42
I think I've been out of the loop too long to consider a meet up. But I am starved for social contact round here, I'll tell you that much.

Also, TOBAL about who can conceive. Obviously the big hole in the argument would be accidental pregnancy, but I choose to ignore it - there should be a parents' exam. You take it and you fail? You do not get to be a parent.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 29 Oct 2012, 11:44
I'm sure a few of us live in the NYC area, which would take away the need for (significant) travel and lodging.

I suppose NYCC (http://www.newyorkcomiccon.com/)/NYAF (http://www.newyorkcomiccon.com/Whats-Happening/New-York-Anime-Festival/) are good meetup spots?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Oct 2012, 11:59
If you want to wait a whole year, sure.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 29 Oct 2012, 12:02
Why would any one think that is okay? I suggest teaching your child to yell, "Stranger Danger!" loudly at them.

... BEST idea EVER!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 29 Oct 2012, 12:23
Why would any one think that is okay? I suggest teaching your child to yell, "Stranger Danger!" loudly at them.

... BEST idea EVER!

Yes, quite. Seriously, what kind of person comes up to a random kid and touches them in ANY manner? Kick em in the face.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 29 Oct 2012, 15:28
You're supposed to enjoy it as a proud parent. But my instincts are always ... different.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Oct 2012, 15:47
I have never had much truck with what I'm supposed to do. You're supposed to take wolf whistles as a compliment but I still consider them to be demeaning harassment.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 29 Oct 2012, 15:53
Well you get told they're meant to be a compliment by some people but that hardly means you have to take it as a compliment. I've been told I should appreciate male attention of any kind since I "must not get it much as a bigger girl".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 29 Oct 2012, 15:57
...but I still consider them to be demeaning harassment.
because they are. 

Getting hollared at makes me feel:
self-conscious about my appearance,
objectified and as though my value to society is mainly based upon my appearance,
depressed about my ability to be taken seriously or be a success, given these facts

Complements make you feel good.
There is a difference between giving a complement "I like your hair."  "that is a cute dress."  (though these can still be off putting when cornered by a man who wants to tell them to you) and harassing someone.  "hey girl, you look fine.  I like a girl with some ass.  You got a boyfriend?"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Oct 2012, 16:14
Well you get told they're meant to be a compliment by some people but that hardly means you have to take it as a compliment. I've been told I should appreciate male attention of any kind since I "must not get it much as a bigger girl".

I reviewed a book once that brought home a point to me I've never considered - there's a massively overweight woman in it who says that she never had any true lovers, only men who had a fetish for her weight - and that made her feel bad about herself because it wasn't about her, she was just a vehicle, and that the first time she met someone who genuinely loved her personality that was when she knew it was love. This is scarcely relevant, but I'm bored. Also it's the only good part in a terrible book.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 29 Oct 2012, 16:27
You're supposed to take wolf whistles as a compliment but I still consider them to be demeaning harassment.

This has, of course, changed markedly in my lifetime.  My cousin's mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_von_Sacher-Masoch) - as determined and self-sufficient a lady as you could imagine (read the link) - was inordinately proud that she still got wolf-whistles from builders into her 50s, as I can testify from being with her at the time.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Oct 2012, 16:42
Even worse is the look you get from the Japanese when you try to speak to them in their native tongue. My wife's Japanese instructor, an American, spoke fluently to a group of people in Kyoto, asking where the nearest train station was...they just looked at him like he couldn't understand him.

Some people with extensive experience there believe that it's genuine. Their notions of social roles are so ingrained that they filter perception. A foreigner, by definition, is big, smells bad, doesn't speak Japanese, and is lost. If a foreigner says something, it must be English, and if they don't recognize it as English, then it must be because the stranger is using English words the listener didn't learn in school.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 29 Oct 2012, 18:06
I'm not sure anyone has said anything terrible or untrue about it?

There was a problem here with new people being attacked, particularly if they talked about the comic or tried to defend someone who they didn't know. I was a part of it.  We were hostile and rude, but we were used to it. We expected new members to lurk for a long time before they gave input, and when one of them offended, it resulted in people piling on.  The group realized that they had out grown this space.  That is why people left, not because they were bad people but because there had been talk of making a separate forum for some time, and it had gotten to the point, since registration was finally unlocked, that it was clear that a large group of us might be better elsewhere.   

Pocket Jury is a fairly closed group of people, by design I would argue.  There is nothing wrong with that, but if you don't fit in with that group of people, then you don't fit in with them, if you do then it might be an excellent forum for you. If you post a lot in the music section here you might be interested, but if that is the case you also have seen Tommy's recent post advertising it.  If people are on this forum because they like and want to talk about the comic, then PJ is not the place for them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 29 Oct 2012, 18:49
I'm a member of a similar web forum, but they're technically a "remnant" of a previously existing webcomic forum. Suffice to say that a certain comic artist got all biatchy over some of the members on the boards, decided to close it without warning, and then went to a pay-to-play format for his "new" forums. Unfortunately, that didn't work because said artist has a bad case of distract-o-mania. (Of course, if it wasn't that he was such a damn good artist, and the webcomic was his primary source of income, he'd be holding a sign saying "WILL DRAW COMICS 4 FOOD" on a street corner in the Metroplex area.)

Enough people got together and got a forum set up to be basically about anything - though it's very heavily slanted towards games and gaming (since the webcomic was Primarily about a Very strange bunch of People running a magazine about gaming). There's comics, games, weird stuff, a guy who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a liberal, and at least one poster who credits WoW from keeping her out of jail (or something like that).

Oh, that reminds me: TOBAL that owners of a forum dedicated to a certain topic should give forum members at least 24 hours notice before they decide to shut it down permanently.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 29 Oct 2012, 22:06
TOBAL that anyone who holds your data, forum or not, has to give you a chance to preserve it if they're going out of business.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 29 Oct 2012, 22:14
TOBAL that anyone who holds your data, forum or not, has to completely wipe that data from their drives and make it unrecoverable, upon your validated request. I'm looking at you, Facebook.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Oct 2012, 01:16
I'm surprised by some of the replies describing PJ in this thread -- it's just another "talk about anything" forum, with fewer subsections.

If you're thinking of some of my remarks, bear in mind: (1) my involvement clearing up the mess here, and: (2) I am also an active participant at PJ.  I do try to remain balanced, while saying it like it is.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Oct 2012, 01:44
I was extremely fond of a lot of the people who left to go to PJ and I still keep in touch with some of them. This forum was a lifeline for me during several years of upheaval and change in my offline life, and I am very glad it was around. But despite that I can't escape the fact that the tone was just different and anyone who goes over to PJ hoping to find another QC forum is going to be disappointed. If you go to PJ hoping to find a forum with discussion and chat and a lot of interesting, intelligent people then you won't be disappointed - but the atmosphere is simply different. It'd be like going from a tea party to a disco; both fun, but different.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 30 Oct 2012, 01:50
I love the crowd over at PJ, I just don't like the forum environment. It was kind of akin to moving everyone from an apartment complex into a shared house. All of the forum personalities that were big over here feel overbearing over there and make up far too much of the tone of the board for my taste. Doesn't change that I'm good friends with a large number of them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 30 Oct 2012, 02:32
There oughta be a law that when a foreigner talks to you, you respond in the same language that they're speaking. If someone makes the effort to speak your native language to you, then it's disrespectful to just default to English or any other language that you know the other person understands better, otherwise that effort is wasted.

It should come as no surprise that I just came back from Germany.

Oh man. Albanians who know English are notorious among the diplomatic community there for practically refusing to speak Albanian to them. Then again, that's pretty fair, since most Anglophone diplomats there are significally better-educated in English than almost any Albanian not from Kosovo.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 30 Oct 2012, 04:19
Looking over the posters at PJ I realized why I like the QC forum so much more these days.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 31 Oct 2012, 01:24
TOBAL that anyone who holds your data, forum or not, has to give you a chance to preserve it if they're going out of business.

Or if they fire you. 

I lost a lot of stuff, some of it personal.  It's still on the university servers, I just can't get it.  One of the IT guys promised to get it for me, then never did. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Edith on 01 Nov 2012, 09:51
TOBAL against being this dumb (http://desmoines.komonews.com/news/crime/792583-mans-identity-theft-attempt-falls-flat-des-moines-bank).

Oh wait. There kind of is.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 01 Nov 2012, 20:06
Looking over the posters at PJ I realized why I like the QC forum so much more these days.
I do miss some of the crowd who went over to PJ because they were very interesting, but so far not enough to register there.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 02 Nov 2012, 04:30
... and, unrelated of course ...

TOBAL against being a humourless, abrasive, clique-ish fuck online.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 02 Nov 2012, 15:49
Mine is unrelated, but some girl I became friends with on LiveJournal around 10 years ago decided to start an argument on what is/isn't funny (in relation to a wisecrack about Jersey Shore getting cancelled by God), and she got super self-righteous about it and expected people to sympathize with her. Nobody did.

It's okay though, I had to learn the hard way too.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 02 Nov 2012, 15:56
How did that joke offend anybody? I barely even registered it as funny, let alone offensive to anyone.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Nov 2012, 17:36
TOBAL that the "POST" button on ANY web forum, message board, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, LiveJournal or ANY other site where you can send text via the internet comes with a second window:

Quote
"Are you REALLY sure you want to post this?"

And is followed by a third warning window:

Quote
"Disclaimer: by posting this to (whatever) you are removing any liability or injury that could be claimed against (whatever) and squarely placing it upon you, up to and including charges of aggravated assault/homicide if you are threatening anyone. So, one last time - Do you REALLY want to post this?"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 02 Nov 2012, 18:51
There needs to be a language analysis algorithm that determines how many times you have to click a confirmation (or pass a CAPTCHA) depending on the number of keywords and phrases in your post.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 02 Nov 2012, 20:06
There needs to be a language analysis algorithm that determines how many times you have to click a confirmation (or pass a CAPTCHA) depending on the number of keywords and phrases in your post.

I'm not quite sure I follow...what exactly do you mean? It sounds like a good idea, but I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Nov 2012, 00:26
I think LTK's post is an extension of jwhouk's TOBAL. 

The more inflammatory the language in the post, the more "Are you sure you want to do this?" buttons you have to push. 




In other words, smart forums. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 03 Nov 2012, 01:41
The argument Pat's not-friend was getting into was really weird. I mean, I can see why someone might not find that joke funny (in my bad moods, if I had been particularly badly hit by the storm, I might not have found it as funny as I did). But her argument very quickly became totally personal and unrelated to the joke - obviously she had not been taught how to argue on the QC forums :laugh: It just looked like a classic example of "I've never been required to think for myself" to me.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 03 Nov 2012, 04:05
In other words, smart forums.

http://xkcd.com/810/
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Nov 2012, 07:47
The rollover text says it all!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 03 Nov 2012, 09:14
I ended up reading this after reading that:


". . .the plan outlined in #810 simply wouldn't work. The "constructive" nature of a particular comment is far too subjective, even for a person, to judge another poster by their appraisal of it. If you're only letting comments get posted that have received that sort of approval, then you're essentially letting the hoards of bots be your moderating team, an awful idea if there ever was one. (And as a one-time forum owner, I can promise you that bots are FAR more numerous than legitimate posters).

So, we have three possible outcomes:
1) Bots rate all comments as constructive. Posts continue through as though unmoderated, and significantly more spam makes it through than a captcha would allow.
2) Bots rate all comments as not constructive. The board grinds to a halt as all comments, regardless of their quality, are discarded before making it to the message board.
3) Bots rate roughly half of the comments as constructive, and half as not constructive. The rating system fails, as all comments receive roughly the same rating (the hundreds of bots outweigh the few real users and render their ratings essentially meaningless). Comments are either posted or blocked as a fluke, and enough spam gets through to make it worthwhile. Again, a captcha would be more effective."
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 03 Nov 2012, 09:22
TOBAL that if you say you're going to email someone at a certain time, especially in an education context, you bloody do it. Punishment for not is getting a complaint written on the internet. Repeated offences will lead to a complaint being written and sent to relevant officials.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Nov 2012, 10:03
I can promise you that bots are FAR more numerous than legitimate posters

Not when you've already blocked them; no bots register here these days.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 04 Nov 2012, 10:38
no bots register here these days.

"We don't take kindly to your folk 'round these parts..." I wish I could have found a bot-free solution for my forums. Ugh...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Nov 2012, 11:04
There's an open-source community-updated database of IP addresses, email addresses and forum names used by spammers, and lookup add-ons for it to integrate with most forum software.  This stopped 99.9% of spammer registrations (they try at the rate of about four an hour here); but they filled up the logs and user count (they were registered but not approved), and about one spammer a week still got in.  When I added the human-type questions to the registration, that stopped virtually all spambots dead.  About two a week get through to the database lookup, and only four (I think) have got right through and posted this year.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 04 Nov 2012, 11:18
Which addons would they be? There's another forum (Luxrender, if anyone cares) that I frequent that has occasional problems with spam and even though it's dealt with quickly, stopping them before they can post would obviously be even better.

EDIT: Lux is phpBB and this is SMF, but there may well be a similar one for phpBB.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Nov 2012, 11:58
This is the database (http://www.stopforumspam.com/); you can register for free to enable supplying updates (which the SMF mod can do for you when you're processing a spammer that got past it).  There are several phpBB mods for it, like this one (https://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/advanced_block_mod/faq/f_614) - I've not used phpBB, so I have no view on which to choose.

An arbitrary number of questions are built in to SMF (I used a mod until I updated to v2); and I think you can do something similar in phpBB using Custom Fields (search the forum - there's stuff there) to add more than one.  Note how the questions I ask here* are designed to resist automatic parsing (which will come eventually, I guess).

* "What is Marten Reed's first name?
  "2 + two = ?"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Nov 2012, 20:38
Does "2 + two" = "4" or "four"?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 04 Nov 2012, 20:59
4our.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Omega Entity on 04 Nov 2012, 21:06
In my experience, they also give you directions as to how you need to answer. I.e., "Answer in numerals" or "answer in letters (lowercase)".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Nov 2012, 22:58
Or the answer's parsed with logical "or"s. 

"Answer: 4 OR four, ignore case".  So 4our probably wouldn't work...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 04 Nov 2012, 23:03
It protects us from spambots. Let's raise a drink for our '4our' or '4 or four' fort.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Nov 2012, 23:38
There's no option for multiple correct answers.  It accepts "4"  ("four" would be bad, as it's language-specific), and people are registering OK so that'll do; no one's arrived saying that it was tricky to get in.  I suppose I could add an instruction...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 05 Nov 2012, 02:18
It protects us from spambots. Let's raise a drink for our '4our' or '4 or four' fort.

That last sentence was so hard to read in my sleepy state
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 05 Nov 2012, 02:28
It was a lot of fun to keep saying out loud.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Nov 2012, 05:31
I giggled. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 05 Nov 2012, 06:26
TOBAL against wearing skinny jeans with these dress boots that are fashionable around here now. It looks fucking ridiculous if you can neither stuff the pants into the boots nor do the pants fit over the boots..
Thats what boot-cut is for, ya morons.
Also you don't need boots because its the city and not a farm.

Yes, I am very spiteful today  :-\
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 05 Nov 2012, 11:29
[...] no one's arrived saying that it was tricky to get in. [...]

Well of course not - they haven't been able to register! :P
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 06 Nov 2012, 04:03
TOBAL against wearing skinny jeans with these dress boots that are fashionable around here now.

Does not compute  :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 06 Nov 2012, 05:46
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I like my skinny jeans/boots combo. I have fucking awesome legs, and I will show them off, dammit.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 05:56
I like boots too. Bootcut jeans do not fit inside of boots and skinny jeans do. And skinny jeans do not fit outside of boots but bootcuts do. So unless those people are doing the opposite of what they should be doing, I don't see the problem.

Basically I just wanna wear my boots and I don't want to have to wear a skirt every time I do.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 06 Nov 2012, 05:57
I wear combat boots almost exclusively. Never know when you need stomping capabilities.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 06 Nov 2012, 06:29
I got a pair of super awesome boots but I don't own any skinny jeans. I'm far too fat to buy a pair, in my opinion. So I have just been wearing my flare/wide leg jeans over them. They still look good, just not awesome.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 06 Nov 2012, 06:43
I have a pair of jeggins I never wear (they're too big in the waist) and some leggins I wear with tall socks and tunics to cover my arse.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Nov 2012, 07:22
TOBAL against Polyglotism in bed. :-D
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Nov 2012, 07:26
How many languages can you moan in? 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 06 Nov 2012, 07:28
TOBAL against Polyglotism in bed. :-D
... speaking in tongues not accepted?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Nov 2012, 07:29
Depends on where the tongue is at the time. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 06 Nov 2012, 07:33
I used to wear bootcut jeans inside my boots (back when I wore jeans) and I would just fold the edges back along themselves so that they basically became skinny jeans, pull my socks up over them to hold them down and then wear my boots over the top.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Nov 2012, 07:46
I would just fold the edges back along themselves

Took me a moment - I thought you were cuffing them.  You're talking about a temporary dart, I used to do that with my snowboots when i was a paperboy in Buffalo. 

Wet cuffs suck. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 06 Nov 2012, 17:40
TOBAL against Polyglotism in bed. :-D

Fuck thaaat do you know how many times a good ol' "O zemr, m faaaaal!" followed by snuggles has gotten past girlfriends to forgive me for just about anything?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Nov 2012, 03:54
Let me rephrase.
My point was the kind of boots that neither allow for pants to go inside of them, nor over them, thus creating the awkward status of being in between the two acceptable modes aka awkwardly creased behind the shoe's tongue.
Ugh.. never mind me. Did I mention Im Captain Anal-retentive these days :psyduck:

Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 06:50
I'm confused about what boots you're talking about.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Nov 2012, 07:58
Kind of like a douchy, really high cut 'urban' looking dress boot
like this
http://www.zalando.de/zign-schnuerer-brown-zi112c02e-702.html

Don't mean to offend anyone who likes these. Just strikes me as pretentious, is all. And I don't think you can pull it of if youre like 18 and still in school.
Why do I even care? :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 07 Nov 2012, 09:03
Oh. That explains a lot. I was thinking riding boots, military-style boots, etc. that people typically wear. Those...are kinda...blah.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Nov 2012, 10:59
They're oxford shoes with workboot tops? 


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :roll:  :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 07 Nov 2012, 14:15
TOBAL against leaving hairs of unknown provenance stuck to the soap after using it.

Also, overly-affectionate shower curtains.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 07 Nov 2012, 14:59
Also, overly-affectionate shower curtains.

Yes. There has to be a way of fixing this. More magnets at the bottom?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 07 Nov 2012, 16:00
Also, overly-affectionate shower curtains.
Yes. There has to be a way of fixing this. More magnets at the bottom?
Ah, Pilchard, I admired the coinage! I googled on it, and found, among other things: http://www.microwaves101.com/content/unknowneditor18.cfm (http://www.microwaves101.com/content/unknowneditor18.cfm)
Magnets are good if the tub is steel. More weight is probably best if the linked suggestion is unworkable.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 07 Nov 2012, 16:18
That is how I've dealt with it, but of course this does not work if your shower curtain is attached to the wall.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 07 Nov 2012, 16:43
I dunno, we do that and it still catches a mystery draft sometimes... But it's still 1000x better than the dorm showers.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 07 Nov 2012, 18:54
Also, overly-affectionate shower curtains.
TOBAL agains baths. Baths are wasteful of water, energy, and space. Like many homes in Australia, mine has no bath, just a shower cubicle. I had the curtain replaced with a sliding door, mainly because it was easier to keep clean. Problem solved!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 07 Nov 2012, 19:31
Also, overly-affectionate shower curtains.
Magnets.

TOBAL agains baths. Baths are wasteful of water, energy, and space. Like many homes in Australia, mine has no bath, just a shower cubicle. I had the curtain replaced with a sliding door, mainly because it was easier to keep clean. Problem solved!
Baths I can agree with, but pleeease don't take away the hot tub!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 07 Nov 2012, 21:18
My shower rod broke once, but I managed to fix it with scotch tape, thumb tacks, and some yarn that was laying around. Thankfully, I was bitten by a radioactive MacGuyver when I was five. Anyways, that's why I'm trans.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Nov 2012, 21:44
If you have a kid, you'll be a trans parent. 


OhgodI'msosorrybutsometimesIcan'tresist. 


We have a tub with no shower (installed in 1926).  It's... roomy.  Taft would be comfy.  I called it the Lusitania when we first moved in - big, white and sinkable (you can sink into it). 

I rigged a valve and a hand-held sprayer to it, and take a sitting shower with the drain closed every morning.  By the time I'm done, I'm sitting in about a half-tubful of hot water, which my lower back and legs really appreciate, especially after the accident. 

And the double curtain thing in the article Redball linked is the best solution. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: dr. nervioso on 07 Nov 2012, 21:50
Oh my god a hot tub sounds so good right now.

Darn college taking away my dreams of owning a hot tub
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 07 Nov 2012, 22:26
If you have a kid, you'll be a trans parent. 


OhgodI'msosorrybutsometimesIcan'tresist. 

If I broke glowsticks all over myself, I'd just be a trans lucent.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Nov 2012, 04:35
But baths are so awesome... I take one maybe every two weeks or so. Unfortunately, my tub is tiny and I can't really fit in it to soak properly, but I love to sit in the hot water with a bath bomb or bubble bar in there. It's calming, which is something I need. It's also much easier to shave my legs when in the bath.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 08 Nov 2012, 04:45
Baths don't waste water! At least, a medium-full bath uses less water than a long shower. I have them occasionally if my muscles are achey.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: idontunderstand on 08 Nov 2012, 05:06
But what use is a medium-full bath?  :-P
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Nov 2012, 05:24
Admittedly, I also take a shower right after the bath because I don't like the idea of sitting in a tub of my own filth...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 08 Nov 2012, 05:27
The only thing I don't like doing in a bath is washing my hair. But all of the bathtubs I've ever used have been too small for me, so it's awkward.

I don't bathe a whole lot, but I would LOVE to have a soaker tub one day. They may not be practical, but sometimes you really just want a bath and they really help relax the body. Also they're probably cheaper and more efficient than a hot tub.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 08 Nov 2012, 08:41
Anyone who believes that baths are "soaking in your own filth" has a fairly incomplete understanding of the way soap works!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 08 Nov 2012, 08:45
Well, it's not even filth really, most of it is just dead skin particles and oils from your skin. (Unless you've been doing other things and are coated in dirt, grease, grime, whatever, then it's more than that obviously.) It doesn't usually bother me because I'm going to be wiping all of that off with my towel (which granted probably has a bit of bacteria on it because of previous baths/showers unless it's a fresh towel).

I mean, when you think about it, you're never truly "clean". And if you're not sterilizing the tub every single time, neither is the bathtub.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 08 Nov 2012, 08:46
GERMS EVERYWHERE
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 08 Nov 2012, 08:49
The kid loves the tub. He gets to play with the duckies and with the puzzle pieces and be generally adorable.

Tub stays.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Nov 2012, 09:09
I don't really wash when taking a bath. It's all about laying there in scented water and relaxing. So no soap is used!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 08 Nov 2012, 14:41
I'm too tall for most bathtubs and also I live with 2 other dudes so our bathtub is pretty consistently not okay for bathing in.
They have long hair too so there's just long hairs all over the goddamn place.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 08 Nov 2012, 14:54
Baths don't waste water! At least, a medium-full bath uses less water than a long shower.
You would have to be taking very long showers for this to be true. The average modern bath has a capacity of around 200 litres. Some old baths (like Carl's Lusitania) had capacities up to around 500 litres. A modern efficient shower-head has a flow-rate of around 10 litres per minute even on a mains-pressure water system of the sort installed most houses in Sydney. An Australian "three-star" shower-head is certified to have a flow-rate under 9 litres per minute. Assuming you have a 200 litre bath, and "medium fill" it with 150 litres of water (http://www.confusedaboutenergy.co.uk/index.php/energy-saving-tips/hot-water/79-shallow-bath-or-deep-bath), you'd need to be taking showers lasting in excess of 15 minutes to exceed the bath's water consumption. Obviously a 100 litre bath is roughly equivalent to a 10 minute shower, and so on.

I have actually measured the water used for a nice luxurious "Hollywood shower" in my own bathroom, leaving the water running throughout and including washing/conditioning my hair, at about 70 litres. I normally follow (loosely) the "Navy shower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_shower)" system of turning the water off while I'm soaping up.

I do know that in Britain you don't have to be as conscious about water-consumption as we do down here during our periodic droughts, and that Britain produces on average much less CO2 per kW than cheap coal guzzling Australia, so these issues are perhaps less urgent, but still: "Think global, act local!"
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Nov 2012, 15:09
you'd need to be taking showers lasting in excess of 15 minutes to exceed the bath's water consumption.

This is not that hard;  and I know a girl in her early 20s whose showering time is only limited by when it runs cold because she's emptied the hot tank.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 08 Nov 2012, 15:12
Most of my showers clock in at around 15 minutes minimum. If no one else is home or everyone else is asleep it turns into 30 mins usually.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 08 Nov 2012, 15:12
I have known people who have stayed in for over half an hour. I have, too, before when I needed to shave. (I have an efficient showerhead, though, and can push a button on it to basically make it stop flowing. I do this when shaving my legs and whatnot.)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Nov 2012, 15:23
Yeah, my showers in the morning are usually about 10 minutes, but I consider that pretty short, so I wouldn't be surprised if most non-rushed showers were in fact more wasteful than baths.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 08 Nov 2012, 16:48
I shower every morning, so thats about 20 minutes, though that gets bumped up to 30 minutes when I'm shaving. (Its not even taking a shower that it takes so long, my hair is so thick that I spend half the shower making sure that there isn't any shampoo left in there)

We did used to have a bath, back from when the house was built (Around the 30s if I'm correct). But back when I was about 12 we took it out and had the shower connected to the mains (This effectively means that we never run out of hot water).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 08 Nov 2012, 16:49
My before-work showers are always in the realm of 15 minutes. My any-other-time showers are closer to 20, 25 minutes. If I've decided to have a "spa night", at least a half hour is spent in the tub, most of it soaking, some of it shaving. I also have this great hair treatment that needs to sit in my hair for 20 minutes and it's goopy so I don't like just sitting around with it in my hair, I prefer to be in the tub. Then another 30 minutes, at least, in the shower. Then another half hour afterwards putting on lotion and whatever other fancy bath thing I happen to have at hand.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 08 Nov 2012, 17:12
I don't know how long my showers are, but every time a conversation turns to water conservation I remember how spoiled I am. 

I grew up right next to one of the great lakes, so I never had any pressure to conserve water.  I know some of the outlying suburbs had no lawn watering regulations a few years when there were droughts, but we never did in the city. You could water to your hearts content. I am actually picturing the number of times I have seen automatic sprinklers on in the middle of rainstorms.  Before just now it had not occurred to me how ridiculous that must look to people from areas that need to manage their water. 

When I was little I saw an ad about turning your faucet off when you brush your teeth and I couldn't figure out how that was going to save the planet; there is plenty of water, to be a good person you just need to not pollute it!  If only.  I confess I am still not real responsible with my water, even though I do try to turn the faucet off when I brush now.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 08 Nov 2012, 17:39
Hmm... It seems my viewpoint is perhaps a bit narrow and doctrinaire...  :laugh:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 08 Nov 2012, 18:04
Akima, the poster raises a question: You or someone here recently posted a couple of Chinese posters with slogans, with an awkward English translation that it seems to me no English speaker would take seriously.
Do such slogans and posters carry any more weight in China? Are they taken seriously. Are they more in tune with their audience than their translations are to us? Or are sloganeers ridiculed?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 08 Nov 2012, 18:23
I'm a lazy bastard compared to all of you...I "wake up", crawl into the shower, and let the water run over me for about 30 minutes before I even start washing...it's my form of wake-up, since I get about 4 hours of sleep per night...it helps with a driving job.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 08 Nov 2012, 19:51
Maybe less lazy than some of us.  If I were only getting 4 hours of sleep I would take the 30 min more sleep and just not shower. But I am comfortable not showering everyday.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Nov 2012, 00:36
When I mentioned that my tub was half full after washing up, I should point out that's with me in it.  When I stand, the water's barely up to my ankles - maybe 4 inches deep (10 cm)? 

In addition, the toilet (which is also from '26) used a full five gallon tank to flush when we moved in.  With a few new parts and a lot of adjustment, I got that down to under 3 gal.  Still a lot, but when I built the half-bath downstairs, I put in a low-flush (1.6 gal) toilet, and that cuts usage even more. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 09 Nov 2012, 01:14
I tend to take 15 minutes to have a shower, including the time it takes me to walk over the corridor to the bathroom, go to the toilet, dry myself at the end, rewrap into a dressing gown and come back to my room. So I think all of you take longer showers than me! Except maybe Akima. I do turn the water off when I shampoo usually, as well. And the tap when I brush my teeth. Oh and another thing that I discovered might be unusual: I don't have water running constantly when I wash up. I fill a bowl/sink with soapy water, I wash the plates in it (and wipe the soap off - not usually rinse, although sometimes I might) and then dry them. I never understood why people claimed that dishwashers use less water than washing by hand until I discovered that there were many, many people who just ran the tap the whole time they washed dishes.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 09 Nov 2012, 01:30
Akima, the poster raises a question: You or someone here recently posted a couple of Chinese posters with slogans, with an awkward English translation that it seems to me no English speaker would take seriously.
To avoid derailing this thread too much, I decided to answer your questions (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28341.msg1109852.html#msg1109852) over in the Political Art thread in the Discuss sub-forum.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 09 Nov 2012, 02:09
I do turn the water off when I shampoo usually, as well.

The water turning off has always been the signal of "I am now done with the shower and will be exiting, drying off, and vacating the bathroom soon." I used to live with 3 other people (now only 2) and we have just one bathroom, so signalling that you are done means that everyone else can start getting ready to use the bathroom.
The only time this stopped working was when my housemate's ex would shower. She would shower then stand in the bathroom with the water off and air dry. None of us knew why she did that. I guess there ought to be a law against drip drying when you live with other people and share a bathroom.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 09 Nov 2012, 02:31
I never understood why people claimed that dishwashers use less water than washing by hand until I discovered that there were many, many people who just ran the tap the whole time they washed dishes.

Thats insane.
I unplugged my kitchen-boiler to force myself to use warm water only when I do the dishes (via filling the sink with hot water from the electric-kettle).

Although I read somewhere big-city sewage systems require a certain amount of constant flow of water to funtion properly, so that might put a damper on the whole water-saving thing..
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 09 Nov 2012, 12:08
TOBAL against wearing leggings, especially translucent ones, as trousers with a short top. This is grand. (http://img.alibaba.com/wsphoto/v0/424685210/Free-shipping-Mixable-5-pcs-Lot-NWT-S771-Dreamy-Lace-Slim-Cotton-Long-Top-2-Colors.jpg) This is pushing it. (http://www.izzysmum.co.uk/t/orig/MV-GDMG_0.jpg) This is bad. (http://www.yogasportsclothing.com/image/cache/data/11G/H3363Y_P9208A-yoga-clothes-clothing-tops-trousers-capris-pants-600x600.jpg) (I chose that one specifically for the lack of cameltoe.) Basically I don't want to see your Barbie/Ken logo area, especially not appearing to be vacuum sealed.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Nov 2012, 12:34
Shows how little I know about fashion. I think the third one looks better than the second one.  Then again I'm not quite sure I know the difference between "leggings", "trousers" and "pants". (I'm pretty sure the second and third are the same, just regional. Are leggings just tight pants?)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: TRVA123 on 09 Nov 2012, 13:05
TOBAL against driving under the speed limit. I now have to factor extra time into my schedule to accommodate slow driving idiots.

and construction, there should be a law against road construction that closes roads lasting more than 2 months. If you don't close the road, whatever, take as long as you want... but if you close the road......... grrrrrr
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 09 Nov 2012, 13:19
Shows how little I know about fashion. I think the third one looks better than the second one.  Then again I'm not quite sure I know the difference between "leggings", "trousers" and "pants". (I'm pretty sure the second and third are the same, just regional. Are leggings just tight pants?)

The third one isn't a great example, because admittedly that's a photo of exercise clothes. Although I'd personally rather wear something loose and breezy for exercise. It's more this look that bugs me. (http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/20/202478/22_2008/leggingsastrousers.jpg)
Leggings are skin-tight and stretchy, usually lycra or spandex is what I see, so they conform to the shape of what's in them very closely. Also some people call them "footless tights" and TOBAL against that too. Tights/pantyhose are a different thing.

Also I have bugger all interest in fashion. I don't know where my opinion falls on the spectrum of trend.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 09 Nov 2012, 15:55
By the way, I am picturing every last one of you in the shower, one by one, and it's awesome.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 09 Nov 2012, 16:35
TOBAL against driving under the speed limit. I now have to factor extra time into my schedule to accommodate slow driving idiots.
TOBAL against people that drive way too slow on single-lane roads, then when the yellow line goes dotted (indicating it's legal to pass if there's no oncoming traffic), they try and speed up to fuck with you when you're trying to pass them.

I had one guy do that, then when I finally passed him (I have a bigger engine, haha), he kept making obscene gestures indicating he wanted me to pull over (as if I'd give him the courtesy of pulling over to let him bitch at me, or knife me). I called the cops, they came up behind him after a couple minutes, and pulled him over. Never saw him again, or heard from the police about it.

By the way, I am picturing every last one of you in the shower, one by one, and it's awesome.  :psyduck:

Am I a "10"? XD
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 09 Nov 2012, 17:05
I don't even know what gender you are.

But yes  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 09 Nov 2012, 17:41
My gender isn't so much fluid as really, really big.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 09 Nov 2012, 17:50
My gender isn't so much fluid as really, really big.

Quoth the Takei, "Oh Myyy."

He never gets old. XD
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Nov 2012, 18:29
I honestly don't get what your objection is. You object to people wearing tight pants?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Nov 2012, 19:52
No, leggings are not just tight pants.  They're skin tight, conforming to everything, much like tights do.  And the problem she has is not with the leggings per se, but with them being worn with very short shirts so that everything is hanging out. 


The comment about cameltoe should have made that fairly clear...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 09 Nov 2012, 20:24
Leggings are made of thin stretchy material.  They are like a compromise between pants and stockings.  When your skirt/tunic thing is short enough that you might expose yourself legging as the way to go, because they are totally opaque, but are not bulky enough to change your profile like pants.  Many people (particularly college undergrads?) wear them with regular length shirts on top.  The objection is that leggings are not pants and I tend to agree.

I am not generally one to shame someone for their choice of clothing.  Leggings can be incredibly comfortable, and you are under no obligation to put together a nice looking outfit when you leave the house.  Ladies, if you want to throw on whatever is close at hand, that is fine.  That is a legit way to choose your clothing.  The reason leggings as pants frustrates me so much is that many of the ladies wearing them look like they took the time to put on make up and do their hair, and find coordinating accessories.  If you did all that, then you though leggings and a t-shirt was a good looking combination? If so, then lets talk fashion choices a minute.

If you insist on wearing leggings as pants, I am going to analyse them as pants.  They are knit fabric, elastic waist pants.  Elastic waist, knit fabric pants are not cute.  They have a well established tradition in our world of clothing choices.  They signal something, something we all know they signal, but which apparently by calling them leggings and not elastic waist pants, we are pretending they are free of the sigma of.  People do not wear elastic waist pants to be fashionable; they are pants which one wears out of necessity, even though they are not fashionable, because you are a member of a class for whom a particular function is much more important than form.  One wears elastic waist pants because you need the "on off" function of pants to be easy to operate.  The well established class of people who already wear elastic waist pants is people who have trouble getting real pants on and off when they need to pee: Toddlers and the elderly.  Those are the people who wear elastic waist, knit fabric pants.  I know that hug your firm young bottom nicely, but so will a good pair of jeans and I will not pretend that wearing toddler pants projects a pulled together and fashionable appearance.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 09 Nov 2012, 20:49
Another problem with leggings:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nUDN9DQrRHQ/T_30tDbA6II/AAAAAAAAAes/JKYK85MHqCs/s640/nude-leggings1.jpg)

Hint: look at her ankles.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Nov 2012, 20:54
The ankles arent the problem.   :-D
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Nov 2012, 22:43
I've heard the whole leggings vs. pants before, and I still don't get it. Probably because the word "pants" to me means "something you wear from the waist down that covers your legs". I don't see how leggings aren't pants. Unpleasant looking and tight pants, sure, but pants nonetheless!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Nov 2012, 23:11
Even ignoring the fact that pants has a different meaning where I live, do you really think of tights as pants also?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Nov 2012, 23:16
Why wouldn't I? Aren't they pants that dancers wear? Also don't you use the word trousers like I would use the word pants?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Nov 2012, 23:33
Yes; but trousers would never extend to leggings or tights, and would only include jeans generically ("jeans are a type of unlined trouser*", yes; but not "pass me those trousers" when they are jeans).

* Yes, this is a rare sentence in which I would use the singular form!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Nov 2012, 23:41
Interesting. So trousers is not just a regional word for pants, since jeans are pants. Unless they're not. This is way too complicated.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Nov 2012, 02:03
To me, pants are what Paul calls trousers.  Jeans are jeans... there are also sweat pants, and what my wife calls stretch pants, which are much tighter and more form fitting than pants but not completely so - they still have legs that hang free from the knee down.  Leggings, on the other hand, are completely form fitting, like tights but generally made from heavier material (tights tend to be somewhat translucent when stretched).  Hose are a different matter, much lighter weight material, nearly transparent when stretched to shape. 


My wife was a costumer for several years; the distinctions in terminology become important.  Want someone to look like they stepped out of the 80's?  Leggings with an asymmetrically collared t-shirt.  The 70's?  Stretch pants with a loud polyester blouse (preferably with ruffles). 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 10 Nov 2012, 02:21
I would call jeans trousers, in the general sense of the sentence "I no longer wear trousers", but I definitely wouldn't call leggings trousers. That'd be a bit like saying that boxer shorts are "pants" because they're the same sort of shape and cover the same areas as regular shorts. True, but if you go out in a shirt and your boxers you will look undressed. Same with leggings.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 10 Nov 2012, 03:43
Thank you all for explaining and much better than I could, including the pants/trousers definitions. Nekowafer linked the image I couldn't find, even. My discussion skills are a bit rusty, it seems.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 10 Nov 2012, 07:25
Another problem with leggings:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nUDN9DQrRHQ/T_30tDbA6II/AAAAAAAAAes/JKYK85MHqCs/s640/nude-leggings1.jpg)

Hint: look at her ankles.

Most places I worked at (OK, all the places I've worked at) have contracts that mention a dress code, and specifically prohibit "tight pants and short-shorts."
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Nov 2012, 07:40
I would call jeans trousers, in the general sense of the sentence "I no longer wear trousers", but I definitely wouldn't call leggings trousers. That'd be a bit like saying that boxer shorts are "pants" because they're the same sort of shape and cover the same areas as regular shorts. True, but if you go out in a shirt and your boxers you will look undressed. Same with leggings.
Fair enough...but shorts aren't pants, they're shorts. But boxers are underpants. Are leggings just long underpants or something? I'd never heard the term used until recently.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Nov 2012, 07:41
AAAHHHH!!

I just realized she was a cashier, and not just standing in line at a checkout.   



Dress codes FTW...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 10 Nov 2012, 09:09
Thank you all for explaining and much better than I could, including the pants/trousers definitions. Nekowafer linked the image I couldn't find, even. My discussion skills are a bit rusty, it seems.

It took me a little while to find it, if that makes you feel any better.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 10 Nov 2012, 10:12
I personally would consider leggings to be underwear, yes. I think this isn't just me (I also consider shorts to be underwear, at least for myself - not that I wear shorts as underwear, just that they're too... short... to be outerwear), I think most people do. But not those people, clearly!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 10 Nov 2012, 11:03
I see leggings as an accessory. They can add to an outfit, but the outfit should be able to survive without them if need be. Same as tights, opaque or sheer. This is why I do not classify tights as pants and if I do wear them out of the house (my reasons tend to be it's chilly, I'm wearing a top/tunic/dress that would not be suitable for pants, or I don't feel like wearing real pants), my butt and crotch HAVE to be covered at all times but whatever top/tunic/dress I'm wearing. And for fashion aesthetics, I think this rule should apply to all people, but it never does.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 10 Nov 2012, 11:14
Leggings and opaque tights are acceptable as the only thing covering your legs, but not your butt/crotch. But I wouldn't necessarily say the outfit has to be able to stand without them. They can serve to bring a top from "is that supposed to be a shirt or a dress? either way it's way too short to wear in public" to "acceptable because now I won't see your panties if you happen to bend over".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Nov 2012, 12:18
just that they're too... short... to be outerwear
Are we talking short shorts or all shorts?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 10 Nov 2012, 12:22
I've heard the whole leggings vs. pants before, and I still don't get it. Probably because the word "pants" to me means "something you wear from the waist down that covers your legs". I don't see how leggings aren't pants. Unpleasant looking and tight pants, sure, but pants nonetheless!

In situations like this, I remember words given to me by an uncle. "Quit while you're behind."
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 10 Nov 2012, 13:02
MoM, for me personally, all shorts. I dress in a way that covers my knees and shoulders - with the very occasional exception for dresses which are a bit above the knee and I wear with opaque tights (or leggings!). On other people I don't mind, although long bare legs on attractive women are distracting...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 10 Nov 2012, 13:05
Just to really mess things up: Jeggings! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeggings)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Nov 2012, 13:10
TED, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to learn.  As for jeggings, aside from being...well, kind of weird, I'd consider them pants, but not jeans.  In fact, how could leggings have pockets and belt loops and still not be pants?

Wait, no, just read "fake pockets and belt loops". TOBAL against fake pockets.  Or pants without pockets at all.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 10 Nov 2012, 13:20
TOBAL against trousers with boxers sown in so that you can walk around with your backside hanging out.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 10 Nov 2012, 15:32
Leggings and opaque tights are acceptable as the only thing covering your legs, but not your butt/crotch. But I wouldn't necessarily say the outfit has to be able to stand without them. They can serve to bring a top from "is that supposed to be a shirt or a dress? either way it's way too short to wear in public" to "acceptable because now I won't see your panties if you happen to bend over".

That's what I meant. Wearing that shirt without leggings would be indecent. I mean, you could wear pants, but if the choice is leggings or no leggings, the outfit wouldn't work without them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Nov 2012, 16:22
Pilchard, are those a thing? Because if so...ew.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 11 Nov 2012, 01:13
As far as I am concerned, jeans are just a subset of trousers not something distinct, just like cords (http://mensfashion.about.com/od/shopping/tp/TopMensCords.htm) or moleskins (http://www.valleycountry.com.au/catalogue/country_lifestyle/ladieswear/ladies_bottoms/ladies_moleskins). The fashion industry seems to have decided that a pair of ladies trousers should be called a "pant", but I don't know why. I thought pant is what dogs did.

I agree with Welu that any top you wear with leggings should be long enough to cover your bottom. The only exception I make is my cycling leggings in winter, where my jersey has to be short enough to avoid snagging on the saddle, but at least there the chamois (http://www.louisgarneau-custom.com/ordering/chamois.asp) hides the bits I would rather not flash to the world.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Nov 2012, 02:47
Pilchard, are those a thing? Because if so...ew.

These?
TOBAL against trousers with boxers sown in so that you can walk around with your backside hanging out.


Yea, they are. There was/is a fashion for wearing trousers very low, so that the top of your underwear shows over the waistband of your trousers. A diagram of the offending article: http://i34.tinypic.com/plidu.jpg
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 11 Nov 2012, 05:16
Akima, I make an exception for sportswear, because there is a function which renders the otherwise inappropriate garment suitable. A bit like swimwear. No one would argue that it's wrong to wear a swimming costume, but someone who walked around in just a leotard would get some funny looks (and at this time of year in the UK, hypothermia).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 11 Nov 2012, 05:18
If 1/4 of the class doesn't understand what the University teacher is writing. He/She MUST take a course for proper writing. This is not negotiable and any teacher who refuses to change will be punished some way or another.


(Seriously... I'm sick of that)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Nov 2012, 08:17
So you're talking legibility, not content, right? 


I'm left handed.  I eat left handed, and several other things are more comfortable that way. 

Not completely, though - ambidexterity runs in my family.  I'm ambidextrous enough so that, in first grade, when they were showing us how a let handed person holds a pencil so as not to smear (couldn't find an image of that for those of you younger than about 30, you hooked your wrist, it was terrible) - well, I laughed and laughed, and put the pencil in my right hand. 

The result of that decision is that I don't really have the coordination to write right-handed, and no training to write left handed (although I can do a nice mirror-script left handed, go figure). 

At the beginning of each semester, I apologize to my students, and tell them that, "If at any time you can't read what I've written, please be sure to stop me.  Odds are, no one else can read it either, and sometimes even I can't read it..."


As for understanding the content, well, I teach math and stats.... :evil:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Nov 2012, 08:26
Oh!  I found a pic of someone demonstrating this technique - note how the hand is hooked above the line of writing, so that the pen leads at the correct angle (a right-handed angle). 

I found it very uncomfortable. 


(http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2011/10/xlarge_obama_leftie_splash.jpg)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Nov 2012, 08:35
I really hated my stats classes at college, though I think that was more to do with the teacher (Finished all the work? You obviously didn't do it well enough. Didn't finish the work? You're lazy/not trying/too distracted.) than the subject. I found myself missing the classes a few days ago because I'm losing the ability to do what I learned.

As for writing, I'm also a cack-hander and...well, let's just say that I should become a doctor.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 11 Nov 2012, 08:51
I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting; nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality, counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications' incomprehensibleness.

(I love that sentence.)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Nov 2012, 09:13
Did you know that the Nth word in that sentence is N characters long?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Nov 2012, 10:01
Holy shit. 1-20, that's crazy impressive.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 11 Nov 2012, 13:58
Zing, you never fail to surprise me with how excellent you are.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 11 Nov 2012, 13:58
Wait, that sounded like a back-handed compliment. I meant that you just keep getting more so. I always expect you to peak and it just doesn't happen.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 11 Nov 2012, 14:13
My maths lecturer had the worst handwriting imaginable. Basically, it was like she went up to the whiteboard, let her hand become possessed by some demonic headless chicken and wrote equations.

It got to the stage where half the lecture was spent by us asking what she had written and her getting more and more annoyed. This wasn't a case of people not understanding the equations, but rather her complete ineptitude of explaining what was going on and covering it with squiggles. We tried speaking to our chief lecturer about it but there wasn't any chance of changing lecturers, there wasn't any budget.

I had to repeat the class the next year, although the instant I found she was teaching maths again, I dropped out and went to a different college. Worked out in my favour I think.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 11 Nov 2012, 14:19
Holy shit. 1-20, that's crazy impressive.
It is, but trancendentalize is a word only a Dalek would love.

I love statistics; does that make me weird, or just a few standard deviations away from the mean?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Nov 2012, 14:25
Above the mean, I think! 

That's my hypothesis, and I'm stickin' to it! 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Nov 2012, 14:27
Naw, stats is (are?) fun - or at the very least interesting. Well, the numbers themselves aren't, but poking them so see what they mean and can do is.

Also, xkcd.com/1132/
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Nov 2012, 14:30
That one was pretty funny, but it's not how p-values work...

I put this on the cover of all my stats final exams;

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/null_hypothesis.png)


Most of them get the joke...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 11 Nov 2012, 14:36
At the beginning of each semester, I apologize to my students, and tell them that, "If at any time you can't read what I've written, please be sure to stop me.  Odds are, no one else can read it either, and sometimes even I can't read it..."

Hey... At least you warn your students. My Discrete mathematics teacher did not. It's also worth saying that he writes very fast while speaking fast as well so people get freaked out while taking notes. Only after the 10th time someone said "can you please tell me what did you write over there?" and we got this:
"Yeah, I know I write terribly... Oh well, in a month you should get used to it. Let's continue!"

He's VERY lucky that he's a nice guy... My stats teacher also writes quite poorly but my DM teacher is just ridiculous since he writes in friggin cursive. I remember my teachers had a problem with me many years ago because my cursive sucked... So I just stopped writing that way and all was good with the world.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 11 Nov 2012, 15:33
I found recently that I can't write in cursive anymore. I forget how, and it ends up jerky and looks like me writing things out at the age of 2 again. That makes me sad, especially since I just found some nice calligraphy pens.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Nov 2012, 18:17
The only thing I ever write in cursive is my name.  Strictly speaking, I don't have a signature, I just write my name in cursive.  One could say that there's no difference but my signature will look at least a little different each time.  There's no muscle memory, it's just me writing my name, since I don't have to sign my name terribly often.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: riccostar on 11 Nov 2012, 18:22
That makes me sad, especially since I just found some nice calligraphy pens.
I actually just took up cursive again on account of having gotten myself a fountain pen. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 11 Nov 2012, 18:23
Zingoleb, you should practice so you can make pretty things with the pens. The other day I found an all-glass calligraphy pen in a box in my attic. I had completely forgotten about it. I should practice with it too...
My signature is my name in cursive but then I start leaving out letters towards the end. So it comes out more like Rosemay WestK.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 11 Nov 2012, 19:56
My signature used to be my first two initials in cursive, JC, (my birthname isn't Jace, but I've gone by Jace since 2nd grade), then the first 4 letters of my last name and 4 loops crossing the t.

Now it is my initials JCB with 1-4 loops coming off of the B.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Nov 2012, 20:36
I modeled mine after my father's - very large, looping initial letters.  I worked hard at it, and it's sort of a John Hancock now - usually about 1 1/2 inches high (~4cm?) and it doesn't fit in a lot of signature slots...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 12 Nov 2012, 01:53
Yeah, I went after my fathers signature too. Especially the wide loopy "T" that is the centerpiece.
I love writing my signature thats why I pay so much stuff with a debit-card.
Also it often makes the cashiers smile.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 12 Nov 2012, 03:03
I have never had the artistic inclination to create a signature as a separate thing; I sign with my name in my handwriting.  In fact, I am unreasonably irritated by forms which have an extra space for my name in capitals as well as the one for my signature, and make a point of writing my legible name/signature identically in both spaces (or if the space is small, just once across the two of them).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 12 Nov 2012, 03:48
I just write my name very fast, it doesn't look the same every time - especially since I recently taught myself cursive so successfully that I now find it hard to write in print.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 12 Nov 2012, 05:09
My signature looks like my name in cursive, but usually the L is pretty big because I really like writing cursive L's. And sometimes I miss a letter, but that's more to do with me hurrying, like signing credit card machines at the grocery.

Also if you practice, cursive will come back to you. I practice every now and then and it has gotten better. I still have difficulty stringing some words together, but that's because my normal handwriting is a combination of print and cursive letters and I always want to pick up my pen for certain letters.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 12 Nov 2012, 05:55
My signature is a fairly obvious cursive S and T followed by ineligible scribble.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Nov 2012, 05:58
Nine times out of ten, if I'm signing my name fast, it's usually only my first initial, first and last letters of my last name. Most of the time, even when I'm signing a check, I don't even spell out my last name.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Nov 2012, 05:58
(Edited to remove picture of super messy signature on top and regular messy cursive signature on bottom)
Current signature on top, old one on the bottom...

I very rarely had to sign anything until I started working as management at Hot Topic. And so I had the bottom signature. But then I got really tired of taking so long to sign everything and changed it to the top one. Which looks almost exactly like my mother's.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 12 Nov 2012, 06:38
Guys, is it sensible to post your signature on the internet...?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 12 Nov 2012, 06:42
I thought the same thing...

The only thing I ever write in cursive is my name.  Strictly speaking, I don't have a signature, I just write my name in cursive.  One could say that there's no difference but my signature will look at least a little different each time.  There's no muscle memory, it's just me writing my name, since I don't have to sign my name terribly often.

Same here. I enjoy writing my first name in cursive so I sign whenever it's possible though. The first letter isn't cursive so there's a tiny bit of signature-thing going on there. :P

Also... Living in Sweden, not many people around have Rodrigo as their first name so I'm cool with it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 12 Nov 2012, 06:55
Guys, is it sensible to post your signature on the internet...?

Nope.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Nov 2012, 06:57
I can't say that I'm overly concerned to be honest, but I edited my post to remove the picture.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 12 Nov 2012, 07:02
Damn, missed my opportunity....
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Nov 2012, 07:12
To sign a check for the $20 I have in my bank account. I know, it's a disappointment.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 12 Nov 2012, 07:13
I just checked. I still have a bank account!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 12 Nov 2012, 07:25
I wouldn't just edit your posts, I hope you remove it from whoever was hosting it as well.

Like, I've had my bank account highjacked before and it's just an extremely stressful situation and I'd hate for anyone to go through that. But bank accounts aren't the only thing, there's also identity theft to consider, which is much more difficult to fix.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Nov 2012, 07:45
The thing is, plenty of people see both my signature and full name every day. When I send paperwork to doctors, I sign the cover page. And there's all the old paperwork, some secured and some not, with my signature.

If this included any information on a bank account, then I would absolutely be concerned. But just my signature isn't going to get anyone anything.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 12 Nov 2012, 08:12
This thread got me insanely curious as to what would happen if I tried to do a search for my full name on google. A couple forums (this one and another one I frequented a few years ago), but also this:

http://pastebin.com/MBkyCaeX
http://pastebin.com/6yazmg83

...Turns out someone took a private post I made on Facebook and made a public log of it elsewhere. And I'm about 99.9% sure it's my ex.

I am pissed off now.

...there out to be a law against this sort of thing?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 12 Nov 2012, 08:33
The thing is, plenty of people see both my signature and full name every day. When I send paperwork to doctors, I sign the cover page. And there's all the old paperwork, some secured and some not, with my signature.

If this included any information on a bank account, then I would absolutely be concerned. But just my signature isn't going to get anyone anything.

Actually, it can. If people found out, say, your SN# and they already have your signature, then it'll be very easy for them to purchase things under your name or open credit cards and ruin your credit and all sorts of things. One of my classmates had her identity stolen by someone in California who was buying houses under her name and she didn't know about it until her and her husband went to get a loan for their house. It eventually got cleared up, but she said her credit was a mess for a couple of years.

I mean, seeing signatures is one thing, but having an image online is something different simply because 1) not everyone who sees it is trustworthy and a LOT more people will see it online and 2) it's a lot easier to copy.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 12 Nov 2012, 16:07
HIPAA laws in the United States make very clear punishments about spreading someone's personal health information (including insurance ID numbers), but if it can't be traced back to the perpetrator, they can get away with a LOT...they probably already have DoB, they can get SSN from the insurance company with the guise of "trying to submit a claim", they already have address, etc...it's very dangerous.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 12 Nov 2012, 22:52
stuff on pastebin

How come no one told Gemma Seymour-Amper to check her fucking privilege?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Nov 2012, 06:55
The links didn't work. Also, I've heard it plenty of times but I'm still not sure what it means to "check your privilege".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Nov 2012, 06:58
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Nov 2012, 07:33
The links didn't work. Also, I've heard it plenty of times but I'm still not sure what it means to "check your privilege".

Good! I don't want people to be able to read that shit. I sent my ex an email asking if she knew anything about them - she sent me one in return attacking me, completely ignoring what I asked her, but they're taken down now.

I'm so confused why she would tell me to take it down from facebook and then put it up for anyone to see it.

Ugh, there should just be a button you can press that keeps people out of your life.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 13 Nov 2012, 07:38
That is pretty creepy and the reaction definitely makes it seem like it was them. I did see the links before they were taken down and I really don't understand why someone would get upset over what you posted and not just get upset, but make it so about them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Nov 2012, 07:44
All it was was a Facebook post disclosing some mental health issues I deal with.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Nov 2012, 07:45
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege
Interesting.  Not really sure what to do with that, but...interesting.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 13 Nov 2012, 08:41
My best friend had her identity stolen and nothing was done about it.  We know the address of the people who did it, because they had credit cards in her name and had things shipped to their address.  The police did nothing about it.  They took police reports on each new account she discovered, but said they couldn't go an arrest them because there was no proof it was really the people at that address. It seems like minimal investigation could prove it was, but it was just not a priority. 

She had a lock put on her identity, so that opening new accounts required answering a series of questions about herself.  The problem was half of the information the credit agencies had about her was wrong.  For instance when she went to open a new cell phone account, one of the questions was "have you ever lived on X street" Or "what is the amount owed on you Y account?"  These were questions about the couple who stole her identity, and not her, so she answered them as such. (I never lived there.  I have never opened an account with them)  This meant she got the "wrong" answers and they denied her application as fraud.  Meanwhile the couple posing as her? They could have answered these questions with no problem.   The ones that did pertain to her were all things contained on her credit report, which they could have easily accessed with the information they clearly had, since they opened multiple accounts in her name. 

Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 13 Nov 2012, 09:36
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Privilege
Interesting.  Not really sure what to do with that, but...interesting.

The article linked in that entry is quite useful to get a better understanding of the concept as well. "Check My What?" (http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Nov 2012, 09:53
I read part of that, but I can't help but be bothered by the idea of "minority spaces"...the name makes it seem by definition to exclude others. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept.  I need to read more of it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 13 Nov 2012, 11:14
I think the way to think about "minority spaces" is this:

If there are minority groups who are subject to discrimination at a societal level, "safe" spaces are bound to form in which individuals need not worry about filtering their identities through the majority opinion.  A space in which groups can form and try to sort out their own meaning: What does it mean to be "one of us" what are our experiences, what do we value, what don't we value, how do we want to be seen by others, how can we achieve equality.  And to do this in a place in which they are the dominant culture. 

When members of the society-wide dominant group enter these spaces and say "wait, wait.. but you guys are X." or "Hold on, but how does your reinterpretation of your own meaning change *my* meaning as a member of the dominant group" or "You can't say that, because it offends me, and makes you all hypocrites."  then you are taking away the groups' agency to define themselves and pressing upon them the dominant opinion.  You are also prone to be offensive without even realizing you have done so by assuming you understand the experiences of someone from this group because you have read a lot about it, or you are sensitive to their concerns. 

Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 13 Nov 2012, 12:20
It's a space where people can hang out with people like themselves and have a safe, carefree environment. I mean, honestly, those are everywhere when you think about it. One of my friends belongs to a group for Jewish young professionals and I went with her to an event once*. I also used to belong to a college aged bible study group when I went to church. People form little clubs with like people all of the time, it's not uncommon. People generally feel comfortable when they surround themselves with like people. It's not that they want to ostracize everyone else, it's that they just want to socialize in a comfort zone.

*I have to do a project for a class that is called "Out of My Comfort Zone" where I need to interact with a community I am generally not familiar or comfortable with. I am unbelievably annoyed with this project because I feel that it's set up in a way where I need to invade the space of others. I asked one of my friends to bring me to some of the events with her Jewish YP club and while she was ok with it, I felt so uncomfortable. Not because of the people, they were all very nice, but because I know I didn't belong there.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 13 Nov 2012, 12:59
Sounds like you'll have earned an A on the project.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Nov 2012, 19:43
That reminds me of a paper I had to write for my Intro to Religion class my freshman year. We were supposed to go to a service of a religion other than our own (which for me is literally any religion), and write about it.  I ended up going to a Quaker Meeting, which turned out to be 45 minutes of silence, followed by bagels and conversation.  (I don't say that to diminish it, I thought it was fascinating.)  As soon as the silence ended and they headed into the other room, I told a few people why I was there.  I was lucky, as everyone I talked to was very welcoming.  In fact, now that I think about it...I kind of want to go back and experience it again.  (This was six years ago, by the way)

As for a Jewish Young Professionals gathering, unless it was an Orthodox thing I can't imagine there was anything in it that would have made you feel excluded.  What made you uncomfortable, if you don't mind me asking?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 13 Nov 2012, 20:58
I didn't feel excluded, the people I talked to were very nice and welcoming.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Nov 2012, 23:06
There's a song called Christmas in the Trenches which I've linked in the past, about the Christmas truce in 1914.  The two opposing sides put down their guns, came out and played soccer, sang carols, shared a few drinks, and then... went back to fighting. 

The last line is "...and on each end of the rifle, we're the same".  The point of exercises like that is exactly what both linds and method experienced, that the people in these groups are just people, like anyone else - something the cultural divisions you "violated" would normally not let you observe. 

I don't have a problem with colleges teaching "life lessons" like this, but I think it can go terribly wrong, and some people may not learn the intended lesson no matter where they go!  Pushing boundaries is fine, until they start pushing back. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 14 Nov 2012, 03:54
Being in places where I feel like I don't belong or fit in makes me anxious.

Wait, do people actually not have this sort of anxiety? Because I know that when I go to a place where I feel that I don't fit in (most recently it was going to the bar down the street, it just didn't feel right to be in a bar having a shot) I just feel weird and want to leave and go back to my room where everything is familiar.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: idontunderstand on 14 Nov 2012, 03:59
I don't really get anxious, I'm a bit too familiar with the feeling of not fitting in I guess. I just sort of accept that I'm much too different from everyone else to just fit in right away.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 14 Nov 2012, 04:13
I guess the intensity varies from person to person.
I used to get the shakes when I was feeling out of place or uncomfortable in a situation. Some kind of nervous reaction. Sometimes at university Id nearly spill the coffee I was holding because it was so bad.
Also this happened a lot when falling in love.
But that subsided over the years. Now I just feel the normal slightly panicky anxiety :roll:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Nov 2012, 05:14
For many in the "melting pot" of the US, especially the privileged, the belief exists that they shouldn't have any reason to feel uncomfortable anywhere.  The assignment is to push them into a position of discomfort. 


It can backfire miserably on those of us who are quite familiar with social discomfort, thank you. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 14 Nov 2012, 07:13
Wait, do people actually not have this sort of anxiety? Because I know that when I go to a place where I feel that I don't fit in (most recently it was going to the bar down the street, it just didn't feel right to be in a bar having a shot) I just feel weird and want to leave and go back to my room where everything is familiar.

I am guessing when you're a big extrovert, no. I do know a few people that are pretty much comfortable wherever and love big crowds, including two of my best friends. I, however, do not like big crowds and never have. Even when it's a big party and I know over half the people there, I still get nervous. I wring my hands a lot and it ranges from cracking my knuckles to pretty much trying to pull my fingers off of my hands.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 14 Nov 2012, 07:14
To be fair, I'm fairly sure I have clinical levels of anxiety, but fucking hell extroverts needs to realize they are not the one and only type of mingler.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 14 Nov 2012, 09:51
Perhaps the assignment was conceived not so that you would attend a group meeting which has explicit membership requirements which you do not meet ("Jewish professionals, Black Scholars") but to some event or location where there are implicit memberships.  There are many event and location which have a different dominant group, but where the cause of the event is not for this group of people specifically to assemble. The problem is it is difficult to find and identify events not targeted at a population you belong to unless they are specifically labeled.

The best examples I can thing of off the top of my head are things like a discussion panel on community activism hosted by a local Black Baptist Church, would likely be attended primarily by members of that church, but would be open to anyone, and church membership would not be assumed.  Or a public market in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, where most people would be Hispanic, and speaking Spanish, but being Hispanic would not be a requirement of shopping there. 

I think being inserted into a group you are not a part of is stressful for anyone.  I have great social skills, and I am pretty good at interacting with new people and I am not at all shy.  I would still feel awkward as the sole out-group person in a group gathering.  Realizing you are surrounded by people who are members of a group you are not a member of makes you hyper aware of where you sit within that particular social division.  If you are a member of the socially dominant group it makes you suddenly aware of the comfort you might generally have in other spaces which get to be "yours" by default. If you are a member of a group which is not socially dominant, then your awareness about your lack of power increases.  Because these situations are uncomfortable, many people avoid them altogether and that is a shame, since there are things to be gained by interacting outside of your comfort zone as it were. 

I don't necessarily think the idea of the assignment was bad, but perhaps the specific instructions about how to go about finding a place to carry it out. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 14 Nov 2012, 10:40
The problem is we were supposed to find a community that we have had little to no interactions with previously. And it has to be a group we can interact with at least 5 times. Your two examples would have been great...except I've pretty much done those already at some point in my life. And the examples that the prompt gave were, "I'm going to such and such place because my students go there." I have no students. Most of the people in this class do. And almost none of them are artists/art teachers, who pretty much seek this kind of thing out all the time. And most of the things I wanted to do conflicted with classes.

Anywho, back to TOBAL.

TOBAL against companies calling you just because they found out you're getting married from another company they are kind-of-sort-of affiliated with. STOP. CALLING. ME. Just because I visited someone else's website does not mean I want to visit yours nor do I want your stuff. Leave me alone!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 14 Nov 2012, 10:52
Is there any sort of preferential call blocking that you can get? Non-directory-ness? We never get calls like that.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Lines on 14 Nov 2012, 20:40
I never answer if the number isn't stored in my phone and don't return calls if there's no message. They left a message that was kind of confusing, so I called back, which ended up being a mistake. But I am being bombarded by emails and phone calls and I just want it to stop. T-T
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 14 Nov 2012, 20:49
I don't think anyone called me, and I didn't get many emails either.  Maybe I got all the little "bitch don't contact me" boxes checked correctly, or maybe they have just upped their game. 

Also, I may not have actually told any websites I was getting married.  I know I used to use knot.com, but I may not have registered.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 15 Nov 2012, 01:33
I never answer if the number isn't stored in my phone and don't return calls if there's no message.

And that is the only way to roll.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Nov 2012, 05:29
I wish I could still roll like that...my phone is paid for by my job, so I have to accept calls from strangers. Of course, if I don't want to talk to them, I can just tell them "let me transfer you to the correct department" *hangup*  ;D
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: riccostar on 17 Nov 2012, 21:42
And this is why they implemented the call terminated tone.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 17 Nov 2012, 22:20
There ought to be a law that you have to use text when it conveys just as much information, faster, than your stupid bandwidth hog of a video.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 18 Nov 2012, 02:05
It's not so much the bandwidth I object to as the time; I can skim text at the rate that I feel it deserves, whereas video clunks along at whatever speed the producer thought would enable their audience to keep up.  It's rare that I bother to watch through a video that could have been written as text, so they lose out anyway as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Nov 2012, 07:16
Indeed. Also, there are plenty of times where I can't watch a video but can easily look at some text, and having a video instead of an article for a simple news thing is just unacceptable for these moments.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Nov 2012, 09:41
Educational videos that are just talking heads are the worst.  Make it audio, at least, so I can do something else while you prattle on...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Nov 2012, 14:42
There's nothing stopping you from having it open in the background, is there?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 18 Nov 2012, 20:12
Then they say something like "as you can see in this graph..." and you have to go back and rewind. 


Oooh, there's an anachronistic term! 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Nov 2012, 20:22
Rewind? as in, turn something in the hopes of spooling it upon itself? I have no idea what you're talking about, old man. Pardon me while I tweet about old folks from my iPad Mini and jam out to my tunes via Pandora...Why do old people call them "tunes" anyway? What are you tuning, a fork?  :psyduck:

</young_whippersnapper>
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 28 Nov 2012, 03:27
There oughta be a law against using hashtags where they have COMPLETELY ZERO UTILITY.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 28 Nov 2012, 03:40
#yeah!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Nov 2012, 04:34
#antihashtaghashtag

To be fair, though, even most of the people who use them on Twitter don't use them with the intent to search other hashtags, they just do it because it's a thing now. So yeah, they technically have utility, but that's not the point.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 28 Nov 2012, 05:01
But perhaps even using them to indicate an idea, without the utility of searching, is useful in its own right.  As I did for the first time only yesterday :)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 28 Nov 2012, 05:11
I think it's sometimes quite a punchy way to make a statement - they've taken on an extra dimension through Twitter which has fed over into other spheres. Rather like some facebook things, such as poking or "fraping" (I hate that word).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Nov 2012, 05:28
I've never heard it. What's it mean?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 28 Nov 2012, 06:08
Fraping? People using someone else's account to post stuff. Usually someone has left themselves logged in and people either post a stupid status update, or do a more elaborate one where they change lots of details. Jens once spent over an hour changing everything about my profile, including my name and gender, to make me as similar as possible to the title character from Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or whatever it's called. He posted frequent updates about all the pillaging and raping I was doing. For weeks I kept discovering new pages I'd "liked" - prostitution, murder, theft and so forth. It was quite impressive, I have to say.
Title: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 28 Nov 2012, 07:44
And your retaliation was what?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 28 Nov 2012, 07:52
I found it hilarious! I did unpick all the changes though, I don't really want the world believing that one of my hobbies is beating prostitutes and stealing their money.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 28 Nov 2012, 08:27
But the thought that you could be all sweet and innocent looking and be into that is hilarious to me.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 28 Nov 2012, 11:57
I've never heard it. What's it mean?

Quote from: UrbanDictionary.com
Conjunction of the words Facebook and rape.

When a person leaves their laptop/PC unattended whilst signed into Facebook and other people change various parts of their personal page to humiliating or undesirable material.

A friend of mine got hit really badly just before we left college. Copious amounts of pictures of penes and semen were left for all to see. They were not happy.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Nov 2012, 12:01
That's kind of fucked up, since that could get their Facebook deactivated.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 28 Nov 2012, 12:04
Why do you think they weren't happy?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Nov 2012, 12:17
Oh shit, their Facebook got shut down? That's horrible! Were they able to get it back?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 28 Nov 2012, 12:38
Huh? No, their Facebook  account wasn't shut down, but I think they did get a grumpy email.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: LTK on 28 Nov 2012, 15:50
Oh shit, their Facebook got shut down? That's horrible! Were they able to get it back?
Would that really be such a huge disaster?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 28 Nov 2012, 17:41
For some people, yes. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: ackblom12 on 28 Nov 2012, 17:42
I could see it being a real problem if you actually use it as a social network for keeping in touch with people.

Luckily, I hate everyone.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 28 Nov 2012, 19:37
Oh shit, their Facebook got shut down? That's horrible! Were they able to get it back?
Would that really be such a huge disaster?
It could mean losing a lot of pictures/messages, so...yeah.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 28 Nov 2012, 20:27
There oughta be a law against housemates not remembering conversations [about how you are going to order a laptop but you are using your line of credit where you get 6 months no payments since you intend to use your tax return (which you'll get in approximately 4 months) to pay off the balance but you are still going to give them the money you owe them and you did the same exact thing when you bought your computer last year so it isn't like this is some new development].
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 29 Nov 2012, 02:44
Having my facebook account shut down would be quite a blow for me, because almost all university socialising is organised through it - I get 30-40 notifications a day, not counting messages. I do still email and text and call and meet people in person, but things are generally preliminarily planned on fb. The choir has a private group this year and it has increased our sociability a great deal.

I don't think you would lose all your photos etc. When you deactivate your account, everything is held in stasis so that when you reactivate (as of course they want you to), it is all still there.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 29 Nov 2012, 04:21
My Facebook is my primary means of promoting band shit. It's also a great place to post snarky funny things that lots of people click the 'like' button on.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Nov 2012, 06:12
And in my case, the best place to piss off the weird right wing nutters you have on your friends list for some reason.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 29 Nov 2012, 08:48
I don't think you would lose all your photos etc. When you deactivate your account, everything is held in stasis so that when you reactivate (as of course they want you to), it is all still there.
Yes, if you deactivate, but if they delete it as punishment, that might be irreversible.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 10 Dec 2012, 02:29
Here we go again...

dude that just sat down across from me..

Loud harumphing and moaning, sniffing, breathing, throat-clearing... no
Loudly distributing and unpacking your stuff.. nope
Smelling obnoxiously of too much cologne... uh-uh
Having your notebook's sound on..  this is a no-brainer

This is a library and Im Anal McLoonypants today :O


edit: Loudly gulping from your squeezy-bottle ....
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 10 Dec 2012, 02:46

I agree with you, man.

(Play it at home, though.)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 10 Dec 2012, 06:18
This is a library and Im Anal McLoonypants today :O

People who regularly emit sound of that nature are commonly seen inside pharmacies and supermarkets, where they are picking up their meds, touching ALL the produce, and ordering 18oz of sliced head-cheese from the deli. Researchers have yet to determine just what causes these beasts to exhibit such repulsive behavior to the majority of society, but all agree: if you want to keep the contents of your stomach intact, stay upwind at all times.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 10 Dec 2012, 06:25
THanks for the advice but it comes to late (for the guy)
I took the sensible aproach, followed him to the toilet and committed gruesome murder.

In my defense, he began smoking an electric cigarette.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 10 Dec 2012, 06:47
Electric cigarettes are far better than actual ones but I'm sick of people saying there's no smell. There is! At least with the filters my parents use. Plus there's still a visible nicotine vapour that can get breathed in and choke on, especially indoors.

That said I kind of want a non-nicotine menthol filter.

~ ~

TOBAL against using the, "If your parent didn't want children then you wouldn't exist." argument. If I didn't exist then I wouldn't be able to care that I didn't exist. Just as my non-existent children will have non-existent feelings over their non-existence.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Dec 2012, 09:03
"I am not my parents" works pretty well as an argument against that, too. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 10 Dec 2012, 11:08
TOBAL against microwaving fish in the office kitchen. Ugh.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 10 Dec 2012, 11:37
TOBAL against cooking anything in a microwave, period.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: idontunderstand on 10 Dec 2012, 11:40
TOBAL against hypersensitive nostrils in a common workplace.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 10 Dec 2012, 12:27
I don't think you have to be hypersensitive to be bothered by microwaved fish.

I couldn't live without a microwave! I'm still living on the meals I cooked at the start of October and froze in individual portions. I defrost them and heat them up when I get home from wherever I've been for however long - today, I left the house at 7am, came back for an hour to plan an English lesson then left again and got back just after 8pm. Without a microwave I'd be having toast for dinner.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: idontunderstand on 10 Dec 2012, 12:45
Well I guess some people have to eat cold fish then.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Dec 2012, 13:10
I knew someone who tried to reheat bread from an Indian restaurant in the microwave and set it on fire.

At least there's already a law against fires in naan-smoking areas.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 10 Dec 2012, 13:23
Oh God! I'd just switched threads when that caught up to me.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 11 Dec 2012, 01:07
TOBAL against microwaving fish in the office kitchen. Ugh.
I reheat all sorts of delicious smelly things in the microwave at work, and dare anyone to say anything... I don't complain about the smell of their milk and cheese, or the horrid oily miasma rising from their mass-produced deep-pan pizzas, so they can put up with my pickled vegetables or hot-sour-soup. I don't use my microwave much for cooking at home, but for the things I do use it for, it is pretty indispensable.

And "naan-smoking areas"? Well played! Why don't chapati yourself on the back?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 11 Dec 2012, 05:31
Excellent, excellent! And from the puri of heart!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 11 Dec 2012, 12:11
This is no way to curry favour.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Castlerook on 11 Dec 2012, 12:13
I relish all these food puns.

That said, I mustard heard them all before.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 11 Dec 2012, 14:26
There is a "没有" pun here some where, but I can't speak enough Chinese to make it.  Akima?

When I tutored my Chinese student/friend in English one of our lessons went over condiments, because she never knew what to order when she got food. I brought in a small sample of everything I could find and a container of french fries and she tried them all and I helped her learn the names.  She had trouble pronouncing "mayonnaise" (which she liked and so would want to know how to ask for) I told her to just say "没有" (Chinese for don't have) instead, because, to my ears anyways, it was the same sound as "mayo" and if I heard it that way, so would most waiters. 
It is one of the few times my very limited Chinese has been useful.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Jace on 11 Dec 2012, 16:17
Actually, reheating most foods isn't bad but some things, like fish seem to stick in the air. I shouldn't come in a full 24 hours after someone's shift and smell the fish they reheated in the microwave.

TOBAL against having an office that has no real airflow.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 11 Dec 2012, 16:29
Bunt popcorn is just as objectionable as fish really.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 11 Dec 2012, 17:24
I relish all these food puns.

That said, I mustard heard them all before.
If we let it go too long, we'll never ketchup.

Which in India, IIRC, is made with pumpkin.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 11 Dec 2012, 17:32
That sounds infinitely tastier than ketchup made with tomatoes. With pumpkin ketchup I don't think I'd have to squash down my distaste.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 11 Dec 2012, 19:04
Not to let slip, but in Puerto Rico they have Banana Ketchup.


It's actually really tasty.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 11 Dec 2012, 19:37
ketchup used to just mean sauce.  That is why the bottle still frequently specifies "tomato ketchup"

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTu5AI71b2ptIhzNmmkAoBR8stQX-85S0Ia1Xk-UURZbMBhlrLs)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 11 Dec 2012, 21:00
Don't forget... "Grade A Fancy"...because no one wants that high school dropout ketchup. That shit tastes like bad weed and crushed dreams.

Sorta related: They sell "Grade A" and "Grade B" maple syrup at Whole Foods (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/whole-foods-market)...why? And why are they the same price? There oughta be a law against that!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 11 Dec 2012, 21:10
B grade is supposed to be better for some things.  I don't remember why or what. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: henri bemis on 11 Dec 2012, 21:29
ketchup used to just mean sauce.  That is why the bottle still frequently specifies "tomato ketchup"

I think that's also why I still love BBQ sauce (even the crappiest kind, which I know in my heart is just the result of someone knocking their spice rack into a batch of tomato ketchup).  I really do not like tomato ketchup on its own.

And there oughta be a law against putting that shit on something unless you ask for it.  When ketchup packets are so ubiquitous that any one of us would never have to actually buy ketchup again, just leave it out.  You're going to give me packets anyway!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 12 Dec 2012, 05:01
There is a "没有" pun here some where, but I can't speak enough Chinese to make it.  Akima?

When I tutored my Chinese student/friend in English one of our lessons went over condiments, because she never knew what to order when she got food. I brought in a small sample of everything I could find and a container of french fries and she tried them all and I helped her learn the names.  She had trouble pronouncing "mayonnaise" (which she liked and so would want to know how to ask for) I told her to just say "没有" (Chinese for don't have) instead, because, to my ears anyways, it was the same sound as "mayo" and if I heard it that way, so would most waiters. 
It is one of the few times my very limited Chinese has been useful.
没有 (mi​yǒu) is quite close to the English "mayo", but the third-tone on the second syllable is a bit off. Closer would be 煤油 (mi​yu​) with both syllables in the second-tone. It means "kerosene", which might be just as oily as mayonnaise, but probably won't taste as good on your salad.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 12 Dec 2012, 11:45
When I eat somewhere that gives out salt and vinegar packets, I always take a shitload to keep in my bag, because KFC and Burger King don't have them a lot of the time and dammit I like salt and vinegar on my fries.

Yes, I'm insane, but it pays off!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Dec 2012, 11:52
I don't believe I've seen vinegar packets anywhere 'round these parts.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 12 Dec 2012, 12:07
It always takes me a while to find mayo packets. I always expect them to be white but salad cream is white. Mayo is usually in blue packets, which thanks to salt and vinegar crisps, I expect blue to be vinegar, but it's brown, which makes more sense if it's brown vinegar but sometimes it's clear vinegar.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 12 Dec 2012, 13:31
"Salad cream" sounds gross.  After wikiing it, it appears to be similar to mayo, which means yes...it is gross.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 12 Dec 2012, 15:23
I don't believe I've seen vinegar packets anywhere 'round these parts.

They're everywhere over here. I'll make sure to stock up if I visit the US.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 12 Dec 2012, 17:26
"Salad cream" sounds gross.  After wikiing it, it appears to be similar to mayo, which means yes...it is gross.

It was originally a cheap mayo substitute created during UK rationing days. The flavor stuck...I guess anything added tastes good on a bacon butty. >.<

I don't believe I've seen vinegar packets anywhere 'round these parts.

It must be regional then...in New England, there's tons of places with vinegar...sandwich shops mostly (try Subway...just make sure it's vinegar, not vinegrette) but fast food joints often have them too if the management doesn't have their head up their ass (That last part is from experience...I used to run a Burger King).

Actually, you're more likely to get red wine vinegar at sandwich shops, come to think of it. Malt vinegar is more the fast food thing.



Also...why are you people even worrying about vinegar in packets?! If you don't want to make an absolute mess (vinegar's surface tension is less than water, making it harder to pour from a packet), just buy a squeeze bottle of it at the local supermarket! XD
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 12 Dec 2012, 17:29
I will often see vinegar offered as a condiment, but it's usually in a bottle or something like that. I've just never seen it in packets.

Salad cream sounds gross to me too. And I can't wrap my head around mayo in packets - I know it's fine but why doesn't it go bad?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 12 Dec 2012, 17:46
I'd never heard of salad cream until today. Looked it up on Wiki, and saw as I suspected that it "resembles" salad dressing, which to me "resembles" mayo. The Wikipedia entry said it's sold in a number of East Coast grocery chains, Stop&Shop included, and also in the Meijer's stores in my part of the Midwest. I'm not tempted. I add salad dressing and pickle relish to my canned tuna for sandwiches. That's enough.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 12 Dec 2012, 17:47
And I can't wrap my head around mayo in packets - I know it's fine but why doesn't it go bad?

For the same reason it doesn't go bad in the jar, until you open it up.  :laugh: It's pasteurized. Completely sterile inside, no microorganisms to feast upon it...until you deflower it, taking away its innocence and corrupting it to the hell that is this world. And the tasty burger on which it will draw its last breath.

I add salad dressing and pickle relish to my canned tuna for sandwiches.

Interesting...I will have to try that. What kind of dressing?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: henri bemis on 12 Dec 2012, 21:09
I think I'm going to have nightmares because salad cream exists.  I already hated mayo, and finding out that there's something worse? 

I am just going to sit in a corner and snuggle my hot sauce for a bit.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Dec 2012, 00:04
In chippies here you not infrequently see a synthetic vinegar labelled "non-brewed condiment".
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Dec 2012, 00:36
I like salad cream. Stop hating on salad cream.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Dec 2012, 00:41
But May, you're also British.

You all aren't exactly known for your top notch cuisine. (Do you know what I had for Christmas dinner every year? Steamed cabbage, boiled potatoes, boiled corn, boiled peas, boiled carrots, boiled onions...)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 13 Dec 2012, 00:44
Did you live in a Victorian orphanage?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Dec 2012, 01:15
Not quite. My grandmother likes her English food, though (she coats her chips in malt vinegar; from a young age I found that disgusting and can't even stomach the smell of vinegar).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 13 Dec 2012, 01:46
I'd never heard of salad cream until today. Looked it up on Wiki, and saw as I suspected that it "resembles" salad dressing, which to me "resembles" mayo.
Salad dressing in the USA is very strange. In Chicago, having been warned of fat-laden horrors like Ranch Dressing, I once ordered a salad with French Dressing. It was gooey, sweet, pink, and not at all what I expected (a vinaigrette made with oil, wine vinegar, salt, pepper, and maybe a small pinch of ground mustard).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Dec 2012, 01:51
This is going to sound odd, but I kind of hate all salad dressing. If I'm going to eat a salad I just pour olive oil on it.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 13 Dec 2012, 03:52
TOBAL against unfair and excessive dunning charges


waaait... there are laws..

So yeah, I got a letter from debt-collectors because I didn't pay my fine for fare-dodging to German Railways.
They demanded nearly a hundred bucks, making the reminder fees almost the amount of the original fine. I thought about it for a second and googled this shit. Turns out german law is inconclusive but generally an amount of 3 per reminder is deemed fitting. German Railways sends two reminders and then shoves the whole thing to a debt-collecting company.
Imho this is fraud... I just payed the original fine plus the reminder fee of 7 and now wait to see if theyll try to press charges.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 13 Dec 2012, 04:17
When Royal Mail collects duty on VAT on purchases I've made from abroad, they add an 8 collection fee (other couriers are similar), which for the things I buy is often double the amount being collected; their collection fee for unpaid postage is only 1 or so, which rather shows the other one up (I suppose there's extra paperwork dealing with the tax authorities, but even so...).

I've also had a courier try to refuse to deliver until I paid duty as for a new item on what was actually the return of a repair.  Grrr!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 13 Dec 2012, 04:23
I usually avoid trouble and cough up. But this just seemed too unreasonable. No way, no how. The administrative costs can never ever be high enough to justify the markup.

The same problem persists with fees on failed debit transfers. My phone-company charges 15-20 per failed debit just because they can, because there still is no regulation on this.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 13 Dec 2012, 05:53
I've had my bank charge over $300 in fees just because I overdrew my account by $20. They charged by transaction, and they ordered finalized transactions on my statement which would appear on the same day, by their monetary amount. Instead of by when they first were charged to my account. So a simply re-ordering of transactions would have resulted in a single $35 fee, not $315.

I asked them why they do this, and they said "Well, we don't want your biggest purchase to get declined because of insufficient funds, so we put that first. What if it was your mortgage?" But they don't decline any purchases. They approve any purchase made, knowing full well that they get to charge $35 for each one, regardless of the purchase size.

The only state they don't do this in, is Nevada. Because Nevada state legislature actually has laws against that shit.

So fuck you, Bank of Murricah. You go die now.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: bainidhe_dub on 13 Dec 2012, 06:06
You might be getting some of that back: www.bofaoverdraftsettlement.com
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 13 Dec 2012, 06:31
Yeah I haven't had that issue lately with BofA - I just get one overage charge. Though I have it linked to my savings account so it can just take money out of that, and only charge me a $10 fee.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: henri bemis on 13 Dec 2012, 13:21
Ugh, BoA.  I keep meaning to switch because they've pulled that shit on me, too.  I'm surprised they don't try to charge overdraft fees for not being able to cover the overdraft fees.  They certainly don't give a shit about anyone's mortgage.  They could at least be honest and say "Yeah, we just get shitloads of money this way."
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 13 Dec 2012, 19:44
You might be getting some of that back: www.bofaoverdraftsettlement.com

HAH. Indeed, I did get a settlement check. It was for SIXTEEN FUCKING DOLLARS. No, I'm afraid they'll never fully repay their bullshittery.

Ugh, BoA.  I keep meaning to switch because they've pulled that shit on me, too.

Try TD Bank. Nice policies, very flexible hours.

Quote
I'm surprised they don't try to charge overdraft fees for not being able to cover the overdraft fees.

They used to, before Obama put a stop to it.

Quote
They could at least be honest and say "Yeah, we just get shitloads of money this way."

They really do. They make more money off of overdraft fees than they make on mortgage interest or credit card interest. It makes me want to turn my back on the entire capitalist machine, and punch Ayn Rand's corpse in the fucking face.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 14 Dec 2012, 00:32
Get in line. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 14 Dec 2012, 00:45
Join a credit union.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Dec 2012, 06:43
Join a credit union.

x2.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: celticgeek on 14 Dec 2012, 06:53
Join a credit union.

That's what I did when I got fed up with BofA.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 04 Jan 2013, 17:41
There is a "没有" pun here some where, but I can't speak enough Chinese to make it.  Akima?

When I tutored my Chinese student/friend in English one of our lessons went over condiments, because she never knew what to order when she got food. I brought in a small sample of everything I could find and a container of french fries and she tried them all and I helped her learn the names.  She had trouble pronouncing "mayonnaise" (which she liked and so would want to know how to ask for) I told her to just say "没有" (Chinese for don't have) instead, because, to my ears anyways, it was the same sound as "mayo" and if I heard it that way, so would most waiters. 
It is one of the few times my very limited Chinese has been useful.
没有 (mi​yǒu) is quite close to the English "mayo", but the third-tone on the second syllable is a bit off. Closer would be 煤油 (mi​yu​) with both syllables in the second-tone. It means "kerosene", which might be just as oily as mayonnaise, but probably won't taste as good on your salad.

Holy shit, second- and third-tones? What in the actual fuck, I've got a really good ear and I think I'd have a lot of trouble with Chinese.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 04 Jan 2013, 19:38
Holy shit, second- and third-tones? What in the actual fuck, I've got a really good ear and I think I'd have a lot of trouble with Chinese.

Likewise. There oughta be a law against confusing languages. Like English... 8)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Jan 2013, 20:48
How about a law that after N hours of a car alarm going off, the vehicle is no longer protected legally against vandalism or arson?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 04 Jan 2013, 22:11
Hours? Not minutes? Wow...you're pretty generous there...time for Kugai to assemble the Lug Wrench Army?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Jan 2013, 09:19
I can see them... marching in formation... twirling those wrenches in beautiful, horrible patterns as the populace flee before them...

And on each arm, the black lugwrench in a white circle on a red armband...

Kinda like this;

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8055/8349439535_da53e328d4_n.jpg)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: valley_parade on 05 Jan 2013, 09:34
Dear soccer players.

When you're whistled for a foul and then pick up the ball, run 20 yards away and drop it, the referee should be allowed to punch you in the face.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 05 Jan 2013, 10:38
I can see them... marching in formation... twirling those wrenches in beautiful, horrible patterns as the populace flee before them...

And on each arm, the black lugwrench in a white circle on a red armband...

Kinda like this;
[...]
Very wrong, very fucking funny.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 05 Jan 2013, 12:45
There ought to be a law that makes it illegal to leave an unoccupied building lit up like a Christmas tree. If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, why not invest in subsidies for motion-sensitive lighting, and make a target (say, for instance, 2020) by which point all commercial and state buildings must have installed them so that lights which aren't being used turn off after, perhaps, two hours.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 05 Jan 2013, 13:05
Is this not common in the UK?
I think it has been common here for a long time, as a cost savings measure more than to be 'green'.

Most classrooms I have been in (high school and college) have lights that go off if you stop moving for 30 min (annoying when you are trying to read).  The lights in the hallway at my current school do this too.  Most library stacks have lights on timers (though for the protection of the books more than for energy savings) I think most offices do this too.  My image of someone walking into a large office at night is the lights flickering on just before them as they walk.  Actually, my mother used to complain about the lights going off on her when she worked late at the office, because the sensor could not 'see' into her cubicle.  Even the lights in the freezer section of my local grocery store are motion sensitive, so when the store is pretty empty (3 am) they light up for you as you walk down the aisle. 

The only place I really see lights on when no one is there is in stores where they leave one set of dim lights on when the store is closed, but I was always under the impression that was to make it easier for security to keep an eye on things.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 05 Jan 2013, 13:06
There ought to be a law that makes it illegal to leave an unoccupied building lit up like a Christmas tree.

They will argue that if they can be considered to contribute to security, then they are being used...

In related news, last month I replaced lights in my house which consumed 650W with lights consuming 93W and giving somewhat higher light levels.  They are 13 of the very latest LED downlighters, and the first I have found that I am comfortable to live with (not even the ones demonstrated to me the previous month were acceptable).  Mind you, they cost 390 + VAT, roughly three times the cost of the lights they replaced - but as well as the savings on power in the long term, there is no bulb replacement cost to factor in either.  There is another similarly lit room that I will do when I can spare the cash - maybe later this year.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Jan 2013, 13:33
I did something similar out back, where we leave two floodlights and the yellow porch light on through the night for safety and security.  When compact flourescent's came into use I replaced the frequently-burning out floodlights (no fixture is completely weatherproof) with cfl equivalents taking 260 watts down to 59.  And I haven't had to replace the bulbs yet...

The only downside is that, in cold weather (like now) it can take a half hour or more for them to warm up completely and cast full light.  When it's below 0 F (-17 C), they never really reach full brightness, but they get close enough! 

We have a few chandeliers however that won't accept new lightbulbs.  Well, they will, but they look like hell.  But I've been replacing damn near everything else with the cfl's for a few years now. 


Including the edison lamp from the 20's that was in the coal room when we moved in.  You had to screw/unscrew it to turn it on and off.  It had sat there, half unscrewed for about 40 years (since the gas furnace had been installed). 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 05 Jan 2013, 13:34
How does it contribute to security to light everything up? Surely it would be more noticable that someone has broken in if the lights come on in the middle of the night?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 05 Jan 2013, 13:54
Partner shop break-ins tell me thieves don't usually turn on the lights, assuming the building doesn't have security/motion lights. In my shop we leave on two sets of lights, one over the till and the aisle furthest away because our cameras don't have night vision. The rest of the shop is lit up enough and there's enough cameras that if someone did get in, they'd be visible.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Jan 2013, 13:56
More to safety -- we live across the corner from a bar, and there's no streetlight on that corner.  Our back yard is open to the street on that side, and people park there all the time.  It's partly for us, one of the lights is trained on the stairs cut into the retaining wall, but also partly a courtesy, and it prevents a lot of accidents, some fights, and probably not a few attacks in the dark. 

The other reason is that the grill walked away one night, even though it was locked to the brick porch rail.  Sneaking up to a house is much harder to do in a brightly lit yard. 

For security in the house we have a very friendly dog with a deep, loud voice that barks at everything and everyone.  She's a sweetheart, but sounds vicious if you don't know her. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 05 Jan 2013, 14:41
My point is that if the lights in a commercial building are on motion sensors, and possibly darkness sensors as well, then if they come on in the middle of the night it's a very clear signal that someone has broken in. I'm not saying that outside lights shouldn't be on - domestic lighting is different, for a start there's far less of it and far less waste.

What prompted this particular thought train was that someone in my college left their room light on during the whole vacation. Which began on November 30th and ends on January 15th. Ugh.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Jan 2013, 15:07
Well, other than her share of the electric bill...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 05 Jan 2013, 15:12
So I can tell you when I worked at Macy's the store's lights were not on a motion sensor, they were on a timer.  I worked changing sale signs before store opening, and I worked in the near dark of just the security lights, so did the cleaners and the maintenance crews.  Having lights on a motion sensor would actually have meant the lights were on more hours of the day.  In the 6 hours of the day that noone is there the lights provide enough light for the security cameras to get a picture.  This would be helpful if there were any sort of loss:  pipe leaks, floods, fire, vermin, as well as losses which involve people.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 06 Jan 2013, 03:35
Nope, background lighting (as in lights which do not plug into a power socket but are switched on by a wall switch) is included in our rent and she will not have to pay any more than if she'd left the light off.

Of course it might have been an interview candidate who left it on - they were in at the start of December. Whoever it was, I wish I'd gone to the porters and asked them to turn it off a month ago. I didn't realise for ages that it had just been left on in an empty room, I was taking it as a sign that there was someone else in college - but then I saw the light on at 6am one day, and 2am another day, and during daylight, and realised.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Jan 2013, 15:29
At a college, the first two would not be suspicious.  It's the daylight one that tipped you off! 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 06 Jan 2013, 15:36
Well, the 6am and the 2am were in fairly close proximity and most people don't see both ends of the day. I only do sometimes - to poor effect. Also, anyone who stays up over vac is either staying because they have nowhere else to go (me) or to work - in which case probably not up all night.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 07 Jan 2013, 00:49
There oughta be a law that you can't bitch about your TV being broken, then while it's being fixed FOR FREE, complain about the fact that it's broken. I know, fucktard, that's WHY I'M HERE. I can just up and leave you with your broken-ass TV set if you're so damn unhappy.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 07 Jan 2013, 02:33
TOBAL against the outside temperature being anywhere below 60F, fuck that
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 07 Jan 2013, 03:57
As someone who gets fainty even at that heat, nevermind above, I'd like it to stay between 5C and 15C. Even then I'm compromising for you warm liking people.

Seriously I spent most of December at work just in the work t-shirt, working with the fridge and every bloody day got, "AREN'T YOU COLD!? You look like you should be cold! Looking at you makes me feel cold!" from the same people. You'd think after asking the third or fourth time in a day and each time I replied with, "I'm okay." sometimes adding in, "I prefer the cold because I overheat easily so yes, I'm comfortable." that they'd learn.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Jan 2013, 04:27
I don't particularly mind warmth or cold, but I hear you, I run warm so I'll only wear a jacket if it's maybe 5C or lower, and be fine with shorts and a t-shirt at 10C. "Aren't you cold?" No, if I were cold I'd put on a jacket.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Jan 2013, 04:30
Reminds me of a friend of mine. We used to hang out outside near his house everyday and in the winter wed beg him "leeets goo too your room and watch dragonball z and be warm!!" and hes sitting there in a t-shirt saying wed have to wait until he felt cold too, the bloody thick-skinned bastard!

Im generally too warm and I don't like to sweat, so I don't like to dress too thick, also I live in the city where everything is overheated in the winter anyway. On the other hand Im skinny and get cold easily so its a bit of a toss-up. Sweater and coat and scarf will surfice for 90% of wintertime here and canvas-sneakers will mostly do too.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 07 Jan 2013, 04:37
I'm pretty much always cold. I think it's because both of my parents insist on keeping their houses frigid for the sake of the electricity bills (usually there is one room that is warm and it's not the one I'm normally in - I need somewhere with a desk to work and it's generally the sitting room which is warm, but noisy because everyone is in there). My room in college is nice and warm, even with the heating off, as it's south facing and has the hot water pipes going through, but the Boy's room is generally cold.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Jan 2013, 04:42
Yeah I can hear my dad telling me to go put on a sweater.
And he was damn right and now would go at me for having the window open and the heating on.

In fact I just turned it off, thanks to my parent's conditioning parenting.

I used to think tiled floors were just always pleasantly warm until I discovered that not everplace has floor-heating O.o

On that note, I just got my coat back from the cleaner's. I never had anything cleaned professionally and now know the meaning of "pressed and clean" because they of course ironed the fucking thing and its totally spiffy again. Hooray for modern society!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 07 Jan 2013, 04:55
I overheat easily as well. I need enough layers to stay warm but not sweat and that's a delicate balance.

The boyfriend wears shorts and sandals year-round.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Jan 2013, 04:58
Did they fix the heating at your workplace then?

I sometimes get the impression that public buildings are generally overheated or that either the custodial-staff doesn't give a damn or is made up entirely from some crazy sect of extremely cold-sensitive people.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 07 Jan 2013, 05:04
It is forecast to be 43C in Sydney tomorrow. I just thought I'd get that out there...
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Jan 2013, 05:08
We're supposed to get into the 40's tomorrow.  But that's fahrenheit...

Currently 0 C.  Thank god, things are starting to melt. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Jan 2013, 05:18
The boyfriend wears shorts and sandals year-round.

I can't get away with the shorts socially in winter, sadly; but I've been seen pushing a car out of a snowdrift wearing sandals (no socks, of course).  I wear sandals less in winter now that I'm on drugs which reduce the circulation to the extremities, but I'm still OK with them down to about 5C.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Jan 2013, 06:32
How is wearing shorts a social issue? Also, maybe it's just me but I can only wear sandals with shorts. Also...43C? Holy shit. Is that a record?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Jan 2013, 06:52
How is wearing shorts a social issue?

Badly worded; my wife and boss would both complain beyond my tolerance... (and one of those matters more than the other!)
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 07 Jan 2013, 07:01
It is forecast to be 43C in Sydney tomorrow. I just thought I'd get that out there...

Break out the emergency bourbon...wait, that might ignite.

Currently -4 C and "rising" here...yeah.

See ya in a few hours, I'm late for beep boop.

Hahh, I can honestly say that now.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 07 Jan 2013, 07:32
It's about 6C here, and gorgeous. I'm even wearing a light cardigan at work, so it's pretty comfortable.

Many people pick on the boyfriend for wearing shorts - including me, though my biggest problem is that they are athletic shorts and not "real" pants of any sort. He's actually been banned from wearing shorts at any of his family's bigger functions.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Papersatan on 12 Jan 2013, 15:11
There oughta be a law (or a policy anyways) that professors have to release the syllabus one week before class starts. 

All of my classes have been scheduled, with an assigned professor, for months.  But they keep releasing the course site and its materials (syllabus and course readings) <12 hours before the first class.  This is particularly annoying when they expect you to have done readings for the first class. 

I am trying to make a semester scheduled which outlines all the assignments I have and has a hyper linked list of all my required readings.  This helps me stay organized as the semester progresses and I get frazzled and can't even keep track of what I am supposed to do, let alone do it.  It is, however, a lot of work to compile the syllabi into one pretty and easy to glance at document.  I like to get it done before I have to start doing actual work.  I also like to have it done before you invariably ask us to sign up to do extra work in a week, because then I don't schedule my presentation or my 5 page reflection paper for the week that I already have 12 things due. 

Classes started Wednesday, but 3 of my 5 classes are on Tuesday, so none of them have activated their course websites yet.  The other two were on Friday and they both activated it on Thursday night, and both expected me to have readings done for the first class (though I was sick and didn't go to either one anyways).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 12 Jan 2013, 15:43
I would complain about that to whoever is in charge of course quality. Expecting you to have done readings which you only found out about less than 12 hours before the class is unacceptable. If they expect you to respect their time and not waste it by not doing the work and then asking for "help" (which often means "can you just give me a good grade even though I didn't do any work?") then they should respect you by remembering that you have lives and are not machines.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 12 Jan 2013, 17:08
There ought to be a law that building numbers and house numbers should be in a standardized location and size so that you can find them while driving without being dangerously distracted by the task.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 12 Jan 2013, 18:47
But this is 'Murrica!  Freedom of... house-numbering...

Oh Kat, I'm still working on my syllabi for Monday...  :evil:
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 13 Jan 2013, 07:25
There ought to be a law that building numbers and house numbers should be in a standardized location and size so that you can find them while driving without being dangerously distracted by the task.

Hear, hear!! Fuck that "freedom of speech" shit, here's the new rule: if you're EXPECTING someone to find your house, and your house number is either not visible, not in the right place, or too damn small...that's a paddlin'!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jan 2013, 08:14
Well sheeeeet I hope none of you ever come visit my mum's house. Not only does it not have a number, its name is only visible once you're in the garden and it's on an unnamed road.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 13 Jan 2013, 08:36
Damn! Can you find it on Google Earth?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 13 Jan 2013, 08:37
It was annoying enough when my apartment building, fairly well marked, was wrong in Google Maps. They were close, but instructed people to turn a street too late and then get lost.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jan 2013, 08:44
Yes, and more usefully our postcode is only shared by us and the house next door (well I say next door, it's a fair bit down the road). We're not too hard to find once you've made it to the village.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 13 Jan 2013, 10:05
My parents house has a name which can't be seen until you're in the garden as well. Including their house, there's three houses with the same number on the road, which is actually a few mile stretch depending on your interpretation of the road's start. I think the number is 36, even though we're next to a 1 and 2.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Jan 2013, 11:33
I remember my family in Wales having houses like that (unmarked, like). I  also remember it being some of the prettiest countryside I've ever seen.

I also remember casually strolling off the deep end of my cousin's pool, as I thought the algae would support my weight, for some reason.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jan 2013, 12:06
My cat did that once.

We are talking about the cat who, when scared by an oncoming car, hid underneath it, though.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 13 Jan 2013, 12:10
I'm presuming you mean it survived the encounter - otherwise that's a very morbid way of saying it was run over.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jan 2013, 12:13
Oh yes, she survived. She was hurt, and we had to shut her in the spare bedroom for a couple of weeks while she healed. I would go in each evening and we'd listen to classical music on the radio for an hour to help her sleep.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 13 Jan 2013, 15:08
Did she have favourites? Or were you imposing yours on her?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 13 Jan 2013, 15:28
Well Radio Three were imposing their choices on both of us really. That was the channel that she was most soothed by. Radio Four was too talky, Radio One had too much loud pop music and Radio Two is too inane.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 13 Jan 2013, 15:54
Cats can tell inane? 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 13 Jan 2013, 15:55
Maybe "both" doesn't include equality of imposition.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jan 2013, 18:33
Our late cat had favorite TV shows.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 13 Jan 2013, 20:43
My cat (the trusty one, who acts more like a dog, really) is guarding the house against "intruders" (my nieces, 4 and 2 years old)...he lets them pet him, purrs, but gives them a claw-free slap if they get rough, and hisses, but won't let them out of his sight.

Well sheeeeet I hope none of you ever come visit my mum's house. Not only does it not have a number, its name is only visible once you're in the garden and it's on an unnamed road.

Well, if there's really no number to the house, that's different. But when, say, my customer says they're on "46 Broadview Drive" and there's no discernable address numbers on ANY of the houses, there's gonna be a problem.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 13 Jan 2013, 20:54
The way I see it, if you don't have a visible number, you have to expect people walking up to your door late at night, then walking away when they realize they wanted your neighbour.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 13 Jan 2013, 22:32
Or worse: how many times has the wrong door been broken down by a SWAT team?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 14 Jan 2013, 01:50
There oughta be a law that everything be awesome all the time

Awesome times are awesome

I'm baked :]
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 14 Jan 2013, 01:56
I have thumbs, my radio preferences trumped hers by default.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 14 Jan 2013, 12:51
http://www.gocomics.com/heavenly-nostrils/2012/12/27

It's a good source of your daily dose of daaawww (for added alliterative appeal).
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Akima on 14 Jan 2013, 17:59
Or worse: how many times has the wrong door been broken down by a SWAT team?
NSW police once demolished an entire house looking for drugs. It had the right number, in the wrong street!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 14 Jan 2013, 21:28
Well sheeeeet I hope none of you ever come visit my mum's house. Not only does it not have a number, its name is only visible once you're in the garden and it's on an unnamed road.

Also I just imagined you going into full Southern-US drawl there for a moment and it was adorable.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 15 Jan 2013, 01:10
That is precisely what I did do!
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Jan 2013, 06:56
1. Somehow I can't imagine you actually speaking Southern.

2. A mix of British accent with Southern would melt the hearts of millions of red-blooded Americans.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 15 Jan 2013, 07:07
On Skype or it didn't happen.

When I met Clara, she had been living in Michigan for 6 years but still retained a gentle Tennessee accent. But when accent came up in conversation, she could move it several hundred miles southeast to somewhere in Georgia. It was always funny to me.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Jan 2013, 07:18
On Skype or it didn't happen.

I must agree
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 15 Jan 2013, 10:16
I may have mentioned this before but it's fascinating to listen to my wife's accent change when she drives across the border into her birth state.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 15 Jan 2013, 10:30
Are you going to post the audio?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 15 Jan 2013, 11:02
My mother's voice will change when she speaks to her aunt. It's scary.

What is ever scarier is that I can turn it on and off myself at will.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 15 Jan 2013, 11:17
My father had a good bass voice, met my mom in a church choir. As a newspaper reporter, he sometimes interviewed sources from home. When he started interviewing, his voice dropped by what seemed like half an octave.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 15 Jan 2013, 15:30
For whatever reason, I subconsciously emulate the accent of whoever I'm talking to. This is especially disruptive when I'm talking to someone who has a REALLY strong accent, like from India, etc. I have to consciously retain my Connecticut-speak while I'm conversing. @[email protected]
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Thrillho on 15 Jan 2013, 15:37
I do that too.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: BeoPuppy on 15 Jan 2013, 15:44
Me too. Nearly got beaten up for it by a drunk irishman.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Jan 2013, 16:31
I don't pick up on accents, but I will pick up on phrases or how certain words are said. When I hung out with my high school friend Nadean all the time, we talked almost exactly like each other.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Jan 2013, 17:08
Oh, I pick up Southern VERY well. Wife has to nudge me when I'm visiting friends and relatives in Nashville.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 15 Jan 2013, 18:10
how certain words are said.
Wait, isn't that what an accent is?  :?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: nekowafer on 15 Jan 2013, 18:20
I meant that I only pick up on a few words as opposed to a general accent.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 15 Jan 2013, 19:13
My wife took her Detroit friend to Nashville, and her family called the visitor "MAY-ree." I still call her that sometimes.

I might have told it on some thread here: In the Army in my early 20s, I was stationed in South Dakota. Home on leave to NYC suburbs, I dated a girl from the Bronx for a week. I went back to my post with a Bronx accent -- which I enjoyed, and which lasted about 48 hours. My native accent was Michigan, but I picked up a little NY in 4 years of high school there. But only a little, until I dated that gorgeous girl.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: henri bemis on 17 Jan 2013, 14:08
I unconsciously emulate accents, too, and it always makes me feel like a total knob.  And it doesn't help that I'm terrible at accents, so it usually just sounds like I'm mocking people.  And yet, everyone in my family has pretty strong NY accents that I didn't manage to inherit.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 17 Jan 2013, 17:04
Define "NY" accent, 'cause there's a lot of them.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 17 Jan 2013, 17:15
....Brooklynese?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Jan 2013, 17:39


This?
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Zingoleb on 17 Jan 2013, 18:26
That scene was actually unscripted. The dude was almost almost run over by a cab while they were filming.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Jan 2013, 19:38
Indeed it was. I just wanted to know if that's the accent he meant.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: henri bemis on 17 Jan 2013, 20:07
It's true that I was vague, and there are many NY accents, but I always hate admitting that I'm from Long Island. 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 17 Jan 2013, 20:29
Most people I know from Long Island do.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Carl-E on 17 Jan 2013, 21:32
"There's no k in Long Island!" 
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Barmymoo on 18 Jan 2013, 05:51
I would have said, from my uneducated knowledge of US accents, that the accent in the video is more New Jersey (I know they're pretty close). When I was in Boston I hung out with some kids who did the most hilarious impression of New Jersey accents - I was highly amused by their Boston accents anyway, so hearing them add a layer of hilarity with an impression was great.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Method of Madness on 18 Jan 2013, 06:01
New Jersey accents are the fucking worst.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Welu on 18 Jan 2013, 06:16
TOBAL that when people leave their cars running in the winter to warm them up, that they can't turn on the radio or music to decibel breaking levels for the five or ten minutes it takes for the car to thaw.

Also more suited for confessions but any time I see a car left running with no driver I always want to turn the engine off and throw the keys on to the seat just to send a, "Someone was able to get in your car." message.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 18 Jan 2013, 14:40
I grew up in Georgia, and so whenever I meet a fellow Georgian I can pick them off a mile away. Also, any time I'm on the phone with Mama, it takes at least an hour for my accent to wear off.

I also wind up slipping into it if I'm hanging out with somebody I feel particularly comfortable with. Doesn't matter how long I've known em. If I like you, I talk a little more like a Georgia boy.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Pilchard123 on 18 Jan 2013, 14:44
Sounds familiar.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Redball on 18 Jan 2013, 14:52
It would be fun to hear that.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Bluesummers on 18 Jan 2013, 21:32
TOBAL that when people leave their cars running in the winter to warm them up, that they can't turn on the radio or music to decibel breaking levels for the five or ten minutes it takes for the car to thaw.

Maybe they think the sound vibrations will accelerate the melting process? Not that it really would, but if someone's dumb enough to deafen themselves with that kind of noise, they're probably dumb enough to believe anything.
Title: Re: There oughta be a law!
Post by: Patrick on 19 Jan 2013, 02:41
It would be fun to hear that.

it comes out when i'm drunk too but im having difficukt with a keyboard let alone a recorting interface