Leilin

You must be new here. Most of the people doing this are polluting the threads that OTHERS begin by doing so, with the exception of a few very well documented people who troll by doing it. The only exception to this is stories, where many people will give constructive criticism involving grammar, when it merits.

The state's constitution has a rather idiotic few rules wherein any civil issue (including those that require funding) can be passed on a simple majority, whereas any increase in funding requires 2/3 of their legislature.

I think that it illustrates that some people go to way too much effort to make their posts barely understandable. If you can do THAT much to make your posts a pain in the patootie to read, you can go through a fraction of that much effort to make your posts readable. This has nothing to do with stifling creativity. This board is a forum primarily for communication, not to stretch the boundaries of language. Furthermore, this again makes the false assumption that most of the guilty parties could give two craps less that other people can understand what they read.

As long as you realize that such is an incredibly prejudiced generalization, we're golden. To the rest of the thinking populace, I think the general hypocracy of your point is quite evident so not much more should need to be said on the subject.

The meaning was "made up" over a hundred years ago and reached status of precedent. Don't like it? Tough luck.

The prejudicial nature of that statement is humorously ironic.

I know plenty of gay Christians. The trick is to ignore (or at least make fun of) the extremists on both sides. They are generally dumb and not to be taken seriously.

I've been seeing that all over Facebook. Adorable.

Here's hoping the usual suspects in the Supreme Court don't mess it up.

The guy renounced his citizenship quite vocally. While he hadn't done much on paper I'm not sure this is like picking a random guy off of the street and murdering him for governmental purposes. If anything, it follows a precedent of treating people who moved to the other side of a war as enemy combatants in WWI and WWII, mixed with precedents set with the War on Terror by the previous administration (which I vehemently disagree with). That being said, I agree with your sentiment. Too bad there's only one politician in the entire lineup who's against it, and he's something of a fake in other regards. The other conservatives who are protesting it would be a lot more believable if they hadn't been calling for the death penalty for the "American Taliban idiot before they even knew the facts of the case and fighting to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Romney was for it. Gingrich was for it. Santorum was for it. Anybody left? Ron Paul is against it but he's equally for allowing states to violate individual rights, so *shrug* if you're for him, that's cool, but I find Obama to be significantly the lesser evil.

Again, I only really think it's an issue when it's plainly obvious that absolutely no thought went into the post. Your first line, parody as it was, Robert, was significantly more understandable than some of the things that have been posted here. Once again, nobody is demanding perfection, just a modicum of respect for the people who you are speaking with. Going into a well thought discussion and basically going... I leik dippers cause I can poopie in tem an rub m lil wewe al neit. ... but longer is incredibly rude, not to mention something that spending more time on your post, no matter who you are, or at the very least thinking before you type, (or not posting with one hand while participating in... other activities) can cure. Most of the non-English speaking members of this board, in my experience, actually put a decent amount of effort into their posts. Of course, nobody in here is talking about any sort of mandate, either. This is just what we'd like to see happening to make the forum a more pleasant place.

Honestly? I doubt it will, but say it out loud. "Interrobang!" It's just fun to say.

I have a good side? XD

Just because one dictionary doesn't have the term doesn't mean you get to invent a new meaning for it. http://www.dsm5.org/...ion.aspx?rid=63 http://en.wikipedia....te_note-dsm5-18 Your confusion, or willing obfuscation, comes from the incorrect assumption that the terms "fetish" and "sexual fetish" are congruent. They are not. If they were congruent, "sexual fetish" would not be a term, as the term "fetish," which is related, would have filled the definition without issue.

Mail in ballots are available in CA, but not as used as they should be. :/

You need to look up Tyranny of the Majority and, until you understand why the courts exist, probably refrain from posting on this topic, as you are ignorant of how our system works and is designed to work.

Even if one doesn't like his work (not to my tastes either), one cannot deny his intent to do it or even his (possibly minimal) effort.

*facepalm* Again, sophistry, and a lack of grasp of the ability to disrespect a concept. People who would trample on the rights of others across the world disrespect the concept of freedom every day. And you equating the utter careless trash that some people put out with art is just silly. Art takes intent and effort. You are still treating this as a call for perfection, when it is more of a call for attention. I'll spell it out for you. We are not talking about the evolution of language. We are talking about people who pay absolutely no attention to their typing and are apathetic to whether their posts can be understood at all. I'll stop responding to you now, as you plainly have no interest in this discussion other than trying to change the meanings of words to make yourself right, once again. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Interrobang Don't worry. You're fine. Nobody is asking you to.

We had a discussion earlier in another thread about whether rights of the state are so different from the rights of the individual, and this is precisely why, and precisely what federal courts are designed to do: To protect the individual and the minority when the legislature is used as a flail to beat them down with the voice of the majority. California isn't as Liberal as many Conservatives think. Outside of San Francisco (not even the entire Bay Area), Los Angeles (the city, not the entire metropolitan area), and several other pockets of liberal interestingness (which do include Santa Cruz, and the other proper cities but not include, despite popular opinion, even many areas in Berkeley), rural California is, like many other rural areas, highly Conservative. It just happens that those few (large) pockets of Liberal nature encompass a large amount of the state's population. However, a large amount of that population is youth who are less able to get out and vote than your average adult professional. Essentially, as in most things, it is a more complicated situation than can be placed on a bumper sticker. All you have to do to realize that California is not some uberliberal paradise is go to Boulder Creek (in the bay area), Tracy (Sacramento), any northern rural city other than seaside, or Newport Beach.

It's actually the second "end" of Prop 8, but there's only one to go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html?hpid=z1 Good freakin' riddance.

Agreed on all counts. Nobody's asking for perfection.

I have the same problem, and when they got rid of the smalls I was unable to purchase them at all, until the size change of the mediums, which made them fit my shape again.

Grammar changes, so everybody ignore conventions and put less effort into your text than you did last time you sat down to take a dump! The evolution of language isn't an excuse to disrespect it, or the people you are speaking with, by completely ignoring the rules of it. This is not equal to the uses of different terms across demographics for specific things. This is people who plainly couldn't give two shits less that what they're reading is barely legible. This is the way I picture it (not directed at you, Kitten. The "you" in this situation is those who have absolutely no care for their grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc): You walk into a room where people are doing various art projects. Some people may be fingerpainting, some may be painting in watercolors, some are more skilled than others, but it's obvious that they all care about what they're doing. So you walk in, pee on a bunch of them, and take a big steaming dump in the middle of the floor. When they are annoyed that you have disrespected them and their efforts by this complete disregard for what everybody else is doing, you act offended and persecuted. Edit: Sorry about the scatological terms.

Oh, feel free, Moogle. It'd be my pleasure.