report this user
Jul 1, 2014 Qaraghandy commented on Chow Bio.
I humbly submit "Coffee Pedalers" as a replacement name.
Jun 20, 2013 Qaraghandy commented on How You Living Biggie Buddist Monks?.
What @3 said. This has much more to do with Thailand than Buddhism. Everyone who says otherwise is making lazy assumptions about a very, very diverse belief system.
Oct 28, 2012 Qaraghandy commented on Is This the Worst Version of "America the Beautiful" Ever?.
@29 Thank you for bringing me back to the realm of the obvious.
Oct 26, 2012 Qaraghandy commented on Is This the Worst Version of "America the Beautiful" Ever?.
@17 The Matthew 5:14 reference was first applied to the context of American exceptionalism via the Massachusetts Bay colony by John Winthrop in his 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," which he gave while crossing the Atlantic. I feel like it's the conservative base's harkening back to a proto-founding father: as Moses parted the Red Sea to deliver his people unto the original holy land (thereby setting the stage for Jesus), Winthrop delivered his across the pond to a new one. Ergo, Mitt Romney=American Jesus.
Aug 3, 2012 Qaraghandy commented on Slog Poll: The Use of "Nosebloody" as an Adverb.
"Nosebloody" here is an adjective. There are two simple tests to figure this out without resorting to drawing a syntax tree.

1) Substitute a known adjective form, i.e. sloppy (the adv being sloppily). "I want to fuck you sloppy" makes sense. So does "I want to fuck you sloppily," I should add. This particular syntactical slot can take either an adverb or an adjective, which makes it tricky. So how do we know which one "nosebleedy" is? Apply the movement test!

2) Move the word in question to a syntactic slot that ONLY accepts adverbs: to a position before the verb it is suspected to be modifying. "I want to nosebloody fuck you." Does that pass muster? Not in my book.

Adjective it is!

3) Bonus morphological proof: The root here is "blood." If you add the derivational morpheme (a morpheme which changes a word's part of speech or meaning) -y, the result is "bloody," an adjective. "-ily" results in the adverb. One can then assume, following the principle of common use, that in coining the new word "nosebloody," the speaker intended it to be an adjective, which the movement test above supports.

Thanks for playing!
Mar 28, 2012 Qaraghandy commented on Today in Discouraging.
Comma splice.
Oct 27, 2011 Qaraghandy commented on "Get your freak on girl.".
@6, so you're sex-negative, then?
Aug 15, 2011 Qaraghandy commented on The Morning News.
@13, I absolutely do. Thank you for catching that. @10 and 14, thank you, too.
Aug 15, 2011 Qaraghandy commented on The Morning News.
*is restricted
Aug 15, 2011 Qaraghandy commented on The Morning News.
@2: I hate to nitpick, but when people accuse others of misusing the English language they should really proofread their posts first.

Your post contains the following errors: a missing comma at the end of a conditional clause, rhetorical question punctuated as a statement, dropped coordinating conjunction in an adverbial sequence, missing possessive apostrophe, and unnecessary comma usage. I'll let you try and find these errors yourself so that you can learn from your mistakes. I'm normally very forgiving of such errors but thought I'd bring them to your attention given the circumstances.

Furthermore, any current dictionary will define "son" as a biological, adopted, or legal male child or person in relation to any biological, adopted, or legal parent. If you want to specify "biological son," than you must say so explicitly. This is called the burden of specificity. Without it, the more general sense of the word restricted by context (here context determines it to be "adopted son") is the default meaning. You can google "norma loquendi" if you want to learn more.

English is hard for idiots, regardless of political leanings.