move on!!!

Tuesday: It's called ellipsis…

Tuesday: The English language is so meager in your world…

lizrising: Waheyyyyyyy....someone who knows :)....and

Justaminute: Religious fanatics don't take or accept responsibility....and

Pedro Martinez: ""but teachers who teach etc etc""

Artful Dodger: To a certain extent, I do agree that the use of a preposition at the end of a sentence might look inappropriate. In particular legalese tends to use, for example, “change in which we believe“ instead of “change we believe in”. But, teachers who teach that a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence looks stupid are just stupid themselves…

Pedro Martínez: But it isn't a myth. It's not an exact rule, but generally it is taught in English Language lessons that in some cases such uses of "but" and "and" just look stupid. That is.. it is taught in British English Language lessons!!

Artful Dodger: one of those "rules" that really isn't

Yup, exactly. The rule is a myth and doesn't make any sense.

Justaminute: That is sorta said by Jesus. God isn't your servant to be used willy nilly.

Tuesday: I don't think God is going to get upset over the mention or non mention of a man made phrase.

Tuesday: More seems to be going towards the stuff that makes Americans fatter. It looks like the Adipose level needs increasing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57g3dKzYMuU&

Bernice: I would have thought so, enough "Limey's" were encouraged to Australia under the £10 deal to make sure you'd have quite a take away business in "Foster's Land" based on "Fish n' Chips"..

I'm Just glad the "fry" has not taken over.

Tuesday: I can not see the logic in a statement that someone who does not believe in God is angry that someone they don't believe in won't sort their problems out. I would have thought it was a case of accepting responsibility for your actions because there was no higher power to rely on.

Tuesday: Well, not really. The words "under God" weren't added to the Pledge until 1954 during the communism scare. Some of our founding fathers warned of the danger of using religion to govern. Just because the majority of Americans believe in some sort of God doesn't mean that upholding the separation of church and state is changing what America originally stood for. Just the opposite, actually, no matter who tries to rewrite history and deny the Constitution. That said, editing the broadcast was silly.

P.S. I have a degree in English and I think starting sentences with conjunctions and ending sentences with prepositions are wonderful practices. :)

Tuesday: So I got an F from someone who thinks English sentences should never start with a conjunction. Funny.

Tuesday: Of course they aren't sorry. If they were, they wouldn't have edited the part out in the first place…

Tuesday: And your point is? The rule claiming that a sentence should not be started with a conjunction is a myth. As well as the God… But I should at least give you some credit for being successful in changing the topic in just one post.

Tuesday:

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Tuesday: But why not?

Tuesday: And isn't it stupid to expect them to apologize before getting a reaction?

just goes to show Limey's love chips

(V): whoopee doodle...oil is recycled here as well......nothing new.

One scheme in London involves the recycling of cooking oil from various restaurants and fast food places and conversion into bio diesel.

The Taxi drivers like it as it's cheaper then normal diesel.. the sewer cleaners like it.. less fat poured down the drains causing hard fat blockages that need manual cleaning. In the end if all used oil in London was recycled it'd be enough to run ALL the Taxi's in London.

If it was all collected.. the only consideration would be... is the oil all mixed up.. or the various flavours kept separate.

eg Chinese, Indian, Fish n' Chips.....

Artful Dodger:

Of course, oil companies make no money at all when we use a lot of energy from fossil fuels. Then car exhaust fumes are perfectly harmless. As are fumes coming out of factories.

The reality is that the problem is not the carbon footprint, or carbon emissions. The problem is that we consume without measure, and we waste without measure. Many people try to recycle, use less, drive less, etc. But it is not enough because profits that drive consumes capitalism drive mass production, and that drives pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, ozone-destroying substances, etc.

The carbon tax is a very inefficient way to regulate the problem. What it is saying is that the consumer should pay more for products according to how much carbon dioxide is produced by those products and their manufacturing process.

Instead they should give tax credits to companies that invest in the reduction of pollution. If the capital gains tax runs at a certain percentage, that percentage should be much lower for companies that can prove that they have reduced the pollution produced during manufaturing, use and disposal of a product. In that way more of the capital would remain in the hands of companied that pollute less as opposed to those that pollute more.

There should be no "carbon credit trading" of any kind, because that simply encourages companies that pollute a lot to buy credits from those that pollute less. Companies that pollute more can simply buy their way out of the problem, rather than have an incentive to improve the manufacturing and design of their products.

Well, capitalism is all about profit and the legislators that are trying to address the problems of pollution have only one objective in mind: to make sure that the capitalists keep getting rich, whether by reducing pollution, or keeping it as it is.

> And what's wrong with carbon anyway? Nothing.

Would you breathe the exhaust fumes from a car? Would you move your family next to a big factory with a huge smoke stack bathing your house in carbon dioxide? And when carbon is released into the atmosphere, where does it go? Our atmosphere is a relatively closed system and gases released there stay there for a long time. I think that presuming that the problem is global warming is not quite accurate. The problem is one of generalized pollution and the effects it has on human health and the plants and animals. It is foolish to think that carbon dioxide is "harmless". If it were, people would have no problem breathing the exahust fumes coming out of their cars.

John Smith started the day early having set his



alarm clock


(MADE IN JAPAN )
for 6 am.



While his

coffeepot

(MADE IN CHINA)


was perking, he shaved with his

electric razor

(MADE IN HONG KONG)


He put on a

dress shirt
(MADE IN SRI-LANKA),



designer jeans
(MADE IN SINGAPORE)


and

tennis shoes
(MADE IN KOREA)


After cooking his breakfast in his new


electric skillet

(MADE IN INDIA)



he sat down with his

calculator

(MADE IN MEXICO)


to see how much he could spend today.

After setting his

watch

(MADE IN TAIWAN)


to the

radio
(MADE IN INDIA)


he got in his

car

(MADE IN GERMANY)


filled it with

GAS

(from Saudi Arabia)

and continued his search

for a good paying AUSTRALIAN JOB.


At the end of yet another discouraging


and fruitless day

checking his

Computer

(made in MALAYSIA),


John decided to relax for a while.


He put on his

sandals

(MADE IN BRAZIL),


poured himself a glass of

wine

(MADE IN FRANCE)

and turned on his

TV

(MADE IN INDONESIA),


and then wondered why he can't

find a good paying job


in AUSTRALIA


AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHO ARE GOING TO CREATE EVEN MORE JOBS OVERSEAS WITH A CARBON TAX DESIGNED TO DESTROY EVEN MORE AUSTRALIAN JOBS BECAUSE ITS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST


LEAD BY A PRIME MINISTER MADE IN WALES

Übergeek 바둑이: Bilderberg group baby, Bilderberg group

... If everyone who had an affair was banned from office..

Why was McCain running for President?

Hypocrisy... Bill O'Reilly... affair... Rush Limbaugh... drug addiction.

Artful Dodger:

I am talking about big powerful men that are not in the public eye. Like politicians, they get paid with tax dollars, but they are exempt from public scrutiny. We live in a wolrd of hypocrysy and double standards, that is all. Taxpayers don't care as long as they don't know about it.

Artful Dodger:

> Politics isn't like that. It's about the power. It's weak to resign. Most politicians are addicted to power so resigning isn't part of their makeup. Some do resign, but most don't. They just ride out the storm. Then people forget.

The difference with big private contractors is that instead of power, it is money, and since they are not in the public eye, nobody even finds out what they are up to. We never hear: "This guy makes rifles for the military, rakes in millions, and is a philanderer. He should resign!" Instead, the rich CEO takes his money, enjoys his life, makes strategic campaign contributions, and continues on in his ways. For him there is no storm to ride. People don't need to forget his wrongdoings, because they never knew them in the first place.

Artful Dodger:

> Interesting that it doesn't happen to women in politics but it does with some women in education (like all those female teachers having sex with their students).

I doubt that female teachers are worse than male teachers. The difference is that in the public eye a male teacher having sex with a female student is considered a terrible thing. A philandering male teacher is seen as a creep and a low life.

A female teacher having sex with a male student is treated in more sensationalistic and voyeuristic terms. She will be the subject of TV specials, psychological analysis in newspapers, and tabloid reports. The male student will not necessarily be treated as a victim of a predator, but rather as a misguided teen in trouble. Female readers of the story will wonder: "Was it true love?" Male readers will wonder "What if it I had been that kid? It might have been kinda fun." Self-righteous readers will say "How immoral!" And more vulgar readers will say "What a cougar!"

Artful Dodger:

> He was well liked and effective. He is a smooth operator!

Like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ahnuld was the beloved of the masses. when he was elected governor, a woman sued him for sexual harrassment, then a lot of women came forward. But nobody cared. Now we know he is the proud father of his maid's son. And still people love Arnie in spite of it all.