Shelved by: fuck_yeah_rage on 2012-05-09
Comment on This Post:
*but - someone has corrected the "you're" so I wont bother.
Self motivation poster? Maybe they're trying to improve their own English?
I was just going to say that the person doesn't even know English himself.
That's the point of my raging.
This is something you could put in your grammatically incorrect tea bag container.
derner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner nerrrrrr
dunuh dun DUN dunnnn...
Both are considered correct in American English.
But this is being used as a verb so beaten is the correct one to use.
But even still according to the link I provided either one is correct (technically), though beaten is more common in the verb sense and "feels" more correct.
Hmmm, not sure about that... In an examiners POV I think that would be marked down although that doesn't really matter IRL..
Basically, I wouldn't suggest using it in formal writing. It's fine in the case of internet/informal usage...
Then again, it's American English, not British English lol
"Then again, it's American English, not British English lol"
Exactly, from the link I provided:
"dimsumexpressIn American English, both are considered correct."
Thus our confusion over who's right and who's wrong :D
Beat into a coma? Nope. Killed. Natural selection no longer works. The stupid ones aren't supposed to be the one that reproduce, unfortunately in our society, they are the ones that mass reproduce. We need to just do our planet and society a favor.
Settle down Hitler. You're not going to do a thing. You wouldn't say a word to this guy if you saw him in public. I'm not defending this dude, but suggesting that we eliminate all racists in the United States is incredibly ironic.
Hating racists isn't racist though.
Right, but people against racism generally want to embrace universal peace and respect for one another. I don't think suggesting a mass genocide of the ignorant fits the mold.
I am against racism, but I don't believe in universal peace, seeing as I don't see it as a possibility. As long as humans have emotions, there will be war.
OK, even if you don't "believe in universal peace" it's still something we all strive for. We would prefer as little wars as possible. Suggesting genocide is pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Genocide leads to less people that would wish to make war. If you take the war-hawks out of the equation, than war is less likely.
That might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read. That sounds like a translated quote directly out of "Mein Kampf." Way to try to justify genocide, though. "If we kill all those who disagree with our worldview, then we won't fight with them anymore." Beautiful sentiment.
I didn't say they won't fight, I said it would be less likely. That, and you help the future over-population problem, even though personally I would like to see space colonization as a way to prevent over-population than genocide.
I with you on this. My (A-level) History teacher went "How would you bring World Peace?"
My immediate response; "Annihilate all humans."
And the others in my class agreed with me.
Humans just don't do peacefulness. There will always be someone who will go "I want that!"
Well you look like a tool now...
Guys, I'm pretty sure that the wrong spelling is the point of the joke, as well as the whole "God Bless America" thing.
It's people like this that give my country a bad name.