• LAVA Moderator: Mysterier

Random questions thread - shit you wonder about

Status
Not open for further replies.
i still dont understand that shit. fuck that man. it aint so much of a difference.
 
who/whom - easiest way:

Q. Who came after whom
A. He came after him

who = he
whom = him

Whenever confused, simply see which substitutes better - he or him

In fairnymph's example:
WHOM are you talking to = you are talking to HIM
WHO did that = HE did that

Lacey K, you're quite right - nothing makes much of a difference... on bluelight.
 
Last edited:
Still dont make sense. to me, aight, fine you wanna uphold your grammar thats cool. but it dont mean shit what the difference is unless the subject is grammar. it aint like you gonan understand anymore more or less if they say who or whom
 
It does make sense, and it is necessary. It should be as obvious as when to use 'me' and when to use 'I'.
 
The who / whom thing may not alter the meaning of a sentence, but it is distracting if used incorrectly. But to say "it dont mean shit what the difference is unless the subject is grammar" is ridiculous. What if you're filling out a job application, or sending a follow-up letter to a possible place of employment? Do you want to hope they will have the patience to read what you type two or three times in order to understand what you've put down?

My random question is... why is the religious right so into life support? Aren't they the ones that should be ok with letting "god" determine when the end should come? I don't get it.
 
"she was eighty-six, she was hit by a bus!" - Bill Hicks

All BLers for whom grammar is unbearably confusing, please just get "your/you're" correct, and then tackle "there/their". It is these two mistakes that are both easily avoidable and annoying to read.
 
My question is:

Why, why, WHY is it that, the day before something big is due, something BAD happens to it????

For example, a large programming project that I am working on as part of a team, for which a demonstration is due tomorrow, has just recently developed a weird inexplicable crash bug that only surfaces when the program is compiled WITHOUT debugging mode on.

And with the debugging mode on, it's running really REALLY slow, which is preventing me from being able to test certain features of it!

Why does this shit only happen when it's important that it doesn't?
 
Raw Evil said:
My question is:

Why, why, WHY is it that, the day before something big is due, something BAD happens to it????

For example, a large programming project that I am working on as part of a team, for which a demonstration is due tomorrow, has just recently developed a weird inexplicable crash bug that only surfaces when the program is compiled WITHOUT debugging mode on.

And with the debugging mode on, it's running really REALLY slow, which is preventing me from being able to test certain features of it!

Why does this shit only happen when it's important that it doesn't?

Well, first of all, it's programming. That means trouble every step of the way.

And importance doesn't affect how often shit goes wrong, it's just that when something goes wrong on important things people tend to complain much more about it. When small unimportant stuff gets messed up it's barely noteworthy.

Things fuck up all the time. Big or small. ;)
 
True, but most seemingly big stuff can be fixed with a full rebuild (and a good solid 5-10 minutes of recompiling)... Weird inexplicable crash bugs are the worst thing ever!
 
KemicalBurn said:
It does make sense, and it is necessary. It should be as obvious as when to use 'me' and when to use 'I'.

Well it aint. good for you for knowing. yay.

With the who whom shit, you cant say the difference is like "they're, their, and there" getting confused. the difference is, those are DIFFERENT MEANINGS. you gotta use the correct one because if you dont it means something completely different.

but Who/whom does not change the meaning in any way.

you can say it all day that is does, but it dont.

With whom am i speaking
Whom am I talking to
Who am i speaking with

All of it means the same shit - Who's on the goddamn phone?

Do you want to hope they will have the patience to read what you type two or three times in order to understand what you've put down?


I realllllllllly doubt anyone could ever make a case for the fact that using the wrong form of "who"/"whom" could ever cause confusion about what someone is saying.

Anyways Blah, i feel you on that one. never could figure that out either. whenever i asked they just said HE WAS ALWAYS THERE. he just WAS.

or some shit like that.
 
lacey k said:
I realllllllllly doubt anyone could ever make a case for the fact that using the wrong form of "who"/"whom" could ever cause confusion about what someone is saying.
Perhaps not, but, as I initially hinted and as vibr8tor pointed out, there would be no problem making a case for you not getting certain jobs over this silliest of ignorances. At this point I call it ignorance, rather than misunderstanding, because you've made it quite apparent that it is. Rather than take a step towards learning the concept, you've chosen to argue it, simply for the sake of arguing.

You can get all the props you want here for how cool you are to be keepin' it real yo. When it comes to putting real food on the real table out in the real world, however, Bloolait speak won't get you very far. It's basic english and it's what the world (your world) runs on. We didn't make the rules, the world did. Follow them or get left behind. It's really that simple.
 
You're right, the world does make the rules, but it also changes them. I don't see to many people using the word "whom" much less speaking it. "Who" is generally excepted as the correct word for both. Unless you're applying for a job as a editor or the like I don't see it making a difference.
 
vibr8tor said:
My random question is... why is the religious right so into life support? Aren't they the ones that should be ok with letting "god" determine when the end should come? I don't get it.

Not exactly a random little question, heh. On top of the fact that they may be intervening God's will they are also disregarding the fact that they belive the persons soul will go to heaven. There should be no reason for them to want to interupt that.

To answer the question, I think that they see it as not helping a person in need. Not doing everything possible to keep a person alive, is almost like killing them. Although keeping someonee as a vegtable isn't really helping...
 
goatofthenever said:
You're right, the world does make the rules, but it also changes them. I don't see to many people using the word "whom" much less speaking it. "Who" is generally excepted as the correct word for both. Unless you're applying for a job as a editor or the like I don't see it making a difference.

- I did say "certain jobs".
- Lacey k said, "Who/whom does not change the meaning in any way". That means you should have no problem going through life using only whom. Right?
- You wrote, "generally excepted as the correct word". You meant, "generally accepted as the corect word". I'm sorry to say that you will not be getting those certain jobs either.
- You wrote, "You're right, the world does make the rules, but it also changes them." That is correct - the world changes them, not you, lacey k, or I. We all have to wait for those changes and use current rules until then. ;)
 
I'm saying the world did change them, few will care if you replace "who" with "whom".

My typos are irrelevant, had i been applying for a job i would have proof read my writing.
 
SillyAlien said:
Perhaps not, but, as I initially hinted and as vibr8tor pointed out, there would be no problem making a case for you not getting certain jobs over this silliest of ignorances. At this point I call it ignorance, rather than misunderstanding, because you've made it quite apparent that it is. Rather than take a step towards learning the concept, you've chosen to argue it, simply for the sake of arguing.

You can get all the props you want here for how cool you are to be keepin' it real yo. When it comes to putting real food on the real table out in the real world, however, Bloolait speak won't get you very far. It's basic english and it's what the world (your world) runs on. We didn't make the rules, the world did. Follow them or get left behind. It's really that simple.

Well, im sure they'll definately be looking out for the who/whom errors on my entrance papers to county trade school for auto body. :) Definately cant fix a engine without knowing your grammar son!
 
son? hahaha, you always manage to crack me up, lacey k :)

Anyhow, sticking with linguistics, I too have a little pet peeve of sorts - the massive influx of English into other languages over the past two decades. I understand that all languages borrow from each other and the new foreign words get assimilated into their new respective languages and dressed in all the appropriate trimmings (grammar, suffixes, etc.). I understand how that needs to happen when there is no native word for the term being imported from that foreign language. What I don't get is when there is a native word, sometimes several, and the foreign word still gets top priority, thus drowning out the native terms, which eventually simply stop being used and possibly even disappear from the language altogether. The "information age" has mutilated so many languages in just such a way. Before that, the most obvious every day example was probably the Indian language. When you heard Indian conversations, almost a third was in English. Still is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top