Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:48 pm

When you're writing a sentence with clauses like that in it, the commas generally go around the section that clarifies the sentence, but the sentence can stand alone as complete without it.

Compare:

I saw them walking up Broadway.

I saw walking up Broadway.

If you're looking to emphasize that you saw them (much in the same way a love struck girl might say she saw "him"), use italics.

I saw them, the five Golden Geese, walking up Broadway.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:40 am

How does one say "Where is the bathroom?" in Nederlands? I am going to be in Amsterdam for about 4 hours next week on a layover. I don't consider 4 hours to be really enough to leave the airport to do anything, but I might really have to take a piss sometime in those 4 hours.

It occurred to me today that might be a good skill to have.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:11 am

This is a rather annoying question because I should know the answer.

"I saw them, the five Golden Geese, walking up Broadway."

Can you say the same thing but put the commas around "them" instead?

That is:

"I saw, them, the five Golden Geese, walking up Broadway."

It seems wrong but I don't see why it should be wrong.

the first is grammatically correct if a bit clumsy and is an acceptable use of rhetorical technique to emphasize who "they" are. really though you should just say

"I saw the five Golden Geese walking up Broadway."

unless you're deliberately being heavy on the melodrama. generally speaking you should not be using a pronoun and then clarifying the antecedent in the same sentence because it's poor form. you would never say

"I saw him, Marcus, sitting at the table."

you could say "I saw the boy, Marcus, sitting at the table" or "I saw Marcus, the boy, sitting at the table" but saying "I saw him, Marcus, sitting at the table" is, like I said, a bit too dramatic for ordinary conversation

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:28 am

P_R: I hear that kind of use all the time. Some New York english use them. I know at least 2-3 different Brooklynites speak that way.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:50 am

Count wrote:How does one say "Where is the bathroom?" in Nederlands?

"Where is the bathroom?" alternately "Where is the WC?" People in the Nederlands speak English better than you do, so you don't have to worry about their crazy "Dutch" language.

-Username17

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:23 am

"I saw, them"

This is always wrong, as far as I know. You're never going to use a comma to separate a verb from its object. Commas can introduce a new clause (I saw, I conquered) or it can introduce an apposition (I saw them, the robbers, walking) but a sentence can never start "I verb, object."

(You could see the string "I saw, them" but only in something like "Among them I saw, them I heard, and them I merely imagined, the latter pleased me best" but only by using archaic structures)

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:54 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Count wrote:How does one say "Where is the bathroom?" in Nederlands?
"Where is the bathroom?" alternately "Where is the WC?" People in the Nederlands speak English better than you do, so you don't have to worry about their crazy "Dutch" language.

-Username17

Alright, so my standard "If I was a toilet, where would I be?" wouldn't work.

Still, good to know. A little disappointed that I will only be there for a 4 hour layover. I want to do what every American in Amsterdam wants to do: get some tulip bulbs to take home.

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:25 pm

they're trying to pass a law to make it illegal for furaneurs to buy tulip bulbs.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:39 pm

Anyone know of a way to crosspost from an outside website to facebook but to restrict it to a specific friend's list?

Example: i want to crosspost from tumblr to facebook, but I don't want certain people to see *any* of these lists.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:33 pm

What the fuck is it with this continuing Madonna and the Whore medieval fear of female sexuality bullshit?
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/har ... _squad.php [Topless Robot, Questionable FW, Harley Quinn's post-reboot costume]

Seriously, I don't get it. Namor runs around in a speedo, and that's fine. Martian Manhunter's costume is a bondage harness, boots, and a speedo, and that's fine. Harley Quinn puts on short shorts, thigh highs and a corset, and she's a slut? what?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:11 am

A man sleeps with 30 women, and he's a Stud whose rocking it.
A woman sleeps with 30 men, she's a amoral whore.

It's a stupid double standard.
And why is anyone complaining about that outfit

she's hot.

Americans are prudes.

Datawolf · Post by **Datawolf** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:13 am

Really? In my experience a man with several sexual partners is often considered a sleazy dirtbag who is only after one thing. This also seems to extend to celebrities, politicians, etc. In other words, a man who has a lot of sexual partners is in theory awesome, but the reality is that he often looked down upon.

The human race as a whole seems to have this weird love/hate relationship with sex (though there are exceptions it seems that many of the cultures of the world seem to revile sex in all its forms and seek to control the drive to reproduce). I'm not a particularly sexual individual, I've always found it curious. Is it jealousy directed at people who are comfortable with their own sexuality to enjoy it in all its myriad forms? Is it an attempt to gain power over the population (since the sex drive is even stronger than the survival instinct, anyone who can control the sex drives of others is immensely powerful)? Or are people just weird and psychologically dysfunctional?

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:06 am

Why lie? I don't like loose women because I don't understand why they won't have sex with me.

I bitterly envy people that ask me "How do can you handle going for years without sex? I couldn't do it lol". Because rape is against the law last time I checked, fartknocker. (I would be the biggest manwhore on the planet if I could find women to play along).

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:31 am

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:Why lie? I don't like loose women because I don't understand why they won't have sex with me.

I bitterly envy people that ask me "How do can you handle going for years without sex? I couldn't do it lol". Because rape is against the law last time I checked, fartknocker. (I would be the biggest manwhore on the planet if I could find women to play along).

Same here, Count. Last time my friend got on my case about bemoaning my dryspell, I asked him how long he'd gone without sex because he couldn't get any, as opposed to didn't want it. He couldn't answer.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:32 pm

For a time period, I dated women specifically because they had loose morals. I guess I can be happy that I raised their feelings of self-esteem to the point that at least one of them stopped being a loose woman and started being a little more exclusive in who she dates, but one decided that she wasn't going to put out to me until she was married, the other would lay a guilt trip on me every time I wanted sex about how very horrible her life was. Usually minutes after bragging about how many times a day she had sex with her last boyfriend.

That seems to be a trend: The second a woman starts dating me, she ups her standards. I don't know if that's because I raise her self-esteem or if it's because she knows she's dating below her station and demands more from me in recompense.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:33 pm

I've seen this discussion summed up like this somewhere:
"A Key that opens many Locks, is a master key. A Lock that opens for many keys, is a bad Lock"

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:41 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:What the fuck is it with this continuing Madonna and the Whore medieval fear of female sexuality bullshit?
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/har ... _squad.php [Topless Robot, Questionable FW, Harley Quinn's post-reboot costume]

Seriously, I don't get it. Namor runs around in a speedo, and that's fine. Martian Manhunter's costume is a bondage harness, boots, and a speedo, and that's fine. Harley Quinn puts on short shorts, thigh highs and a corset, and she's a slut? what?

You gave 2 examples, but they are pretty much the most-naked superheroes get, and they are by no means the average. Do you really want to do a comparison between how much skin gets shown for guys vs. girls in comics?

But it's also presentation. There is a difference between just showing skin and being "sexied up". You see a lot of superguys in costumes that emphasize their junk? Or poses that are an excuse to focus on their taut buttocks?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:58 am

PoliteNewb wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:What the fuck is it with this continuing Madonna and the Whore medieval fear of female sexuality bullshit?
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/har ... _squad.php [Topless Robot, Questionable FW, Harley Quinn's post-reboot costume]

Seriously, I don't get it. Namor runs around in a speedo, and that's fine. Martian Manhunter's costume is a bondage harness, boots, and a speedo, and that's fine. Harley Quinn puts on short shorts, thigh highs and a corset, and she's a slut? what?
You gave 2 examples, but they are pretty much the most-naked superheroes get, and they are by no means the average. Do you really want to do a comparison between how much skin gets shown for guys vs. girls in comics?

But it's also presentation. There is a difference between just showing skin and being "sexied up". You see a lot of superguys in costumes that emphasize their junk? Or poses that are an excuse to focus on their taut buttocks?

Actually, yeah. Maybe not so much anymore, but yeah, there are totally tons of poses and costumes with the almost sole purpose of showing off some of the best traits of male supers.

But really, what the hell is the problem with sexuality, especially female?

New question(s): So, supposedly you're supposed to drink 64 oz of water a day (8 8-oz glasses). How legit is that research, and what counts. I've got Twinings telling me that not only their tea counts (no surprise), but also milk and juice.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:38 am

According to an episode of QI (I trust Stephen Fry, don't you?) not only do tea, milk and juice count, but food does too. Because most food items contain water. If you drink the 8 glasses a day or whatever on top of the normal food you eat, you will find yourself using the lavatory on a very regular basis as you piss the excess water away.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:49 am

Prak_Anima wrote:New question(s): So, supposedly you're supposed to drink 64 oz of water a day (8 8-oz glasses). How legit is that research, and what counts. I've got Twinings telling me that not only their tea counts (no surprise), but also milk and juice.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:23 pm

Politenewb: I actually agree with Prak, in this case.

But one of your points needs to be pointed out. How many guys are dressed to be sexy?

Pretty much all female characters are made to be sexy.

I mean, Namor's underwear self is already pretty much normal. It's basically speedos for water. At time of Namor's creation, this was basically what was worn by men when they went swimming.

But even past the beauty part, is the whole sex Vs violence issue.

While women in comics do commit violence, they aren't as open with their violence as men.

Hell, one of the penultimate superheroines in comics is Wonder Woman. Sure, she can kick butt with the rest of them but her shtick is tying people up to subdue them. Superman, Aquaman, Human Torch, Captain america, etc all beat up their opponents. Batman might seem an exception to the rule but I'd argue that his superpower is money.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:27 pm

Wonderwoman doesn't have a laso to be nicer than Superman, she has it for bondage.

No seriously, look it up. Wonderwoman's creater is fucking weird, and she should be the favorite BDSM superhero.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:22 pm

Kaelik: i understand the wonder woman bdsm connection. But my point is that while Superman blows shit up, punches shit up, ices shit up.

Batman batbelts people, macguffins something,

Wonder woman - beats people up (sometimes but often needs help -- even in her own god damned comic), and lassoes people until they cry uncle.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:24 pm

Cynic wrote:Kaelik: i understand the wonder woman bdsm connection. But my point is that while Superman blows shit up, punches shit up, ices shit up.

Batman batbelts people, macguffins something,

Wonder woman - beats people up (sometimes but often needs help -- even in her own god damned comic), and lassoes people until they cry uncle.

...Have you seen any recent portrayals of Wonder Woman? She's basically female Superman with a different weakness these days.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:05 pm

Cynic wrote:Pretty much all female characters are made to be sexy.

Warning: Images are work safe, but advertisements at the top of the page may or may not be work safe.

This picture of Madame Mirage (recolored to look like Carmen Sandiego), I would consider slutty.

But this picture I wouldn't, despite the fact that the woman are wearing approximately the same amount of covering.

Slutty, for me at least, is defined by attitude and context, not the technicalities of clothing.

As to Harley's make-over... I think I'd classify her as a psycho before I'd classify her as slutty. If anything, my complaint would be that it breaks from my notion of what a harlequin is, though in the traditional sense of devilish or demonic emissary, it certainly fits, and I guess in the sense of sexy like a harlequin novel, it works, too.