Comments for Flock of Cats

Comment on The Dark Knight Blu-Ray, Indy Jones Hat, and more geekyness by Grace Rodriguez

Grace Rodriguez — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:11:22 +0000

Where do you download some blue ray movie trailers in HD ?*.-

Comment on Boring grammar and style stuff (you’ve been warned!) by sneaky

Sun, 30 May 2010 15:33:34 +0000

And in my explanation, I used them sloppily! Whoops.

>> for nonrestrictive clauses that provide parenthetical information.

All nonrestrictive clauses that provide parenthetical information. I should have said ” for nonrestrictive clauses, which provide parenthetical information.”

Comment on Boring grammar and style stuff (you’ve been warned!) by sneaky

Sun, 30 May 2010 15:19:13 +0000

Quick comment on the post, I hadn’t even fixed all the typos yet!

I use “that” for restrictive clauses, which are an integral part of the sentence. I use “which” (separated by commas) for nonrestrictive clauses that provide parenthetical information.

It is pretty widely thought they are interchangeable or that “which” is merely more formal, but I think this leads to sloppy thinking and poor writing.

This has a nuance of “there may be other cookies that are 1) not on the counter and thus 2) not eaten by the speaker”.

Here “which” just introduces extra information.

This is a poor example (its almost bedtime!), but there are definitely cases where using “which” and “that” interchangeably will lead to unclear writing.

Comment on Boring grammar and style stuff (you’ve been warned!) by Blain

Sun, 30 May 2010 14:57:50 +0000

You may get a kick out of a book that I read a few years ago. It’s called “Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English” by James Cochrane. He talks about quite a few similar things that you mentioned.

BTW: I have a question for you regarding the use of “that” and “which”. Some people are of the opinion that the two terms are interchangeable. Others–such as myself–believe that they are not, and that they serve two very different purposes. What’s your take?

Comment on A beauty secret by nunka2

Tue, 18 May 2010 04:51:23 +0000

Sneaky. :>

I’m going to be in Japan from the 31st to July 16th. You must show me your milkfed collection.

Also, come back to us. Seks is dying. :/

Comment on Disproportionate Japanese by sneaky

Thu, 13 May 2010 22:39:18 +0000

Good point. Yeah, stopcocks are used in a lot of chemistry glassware and are probably analogous to the fuel cock. But, cock still seems a little odd in this case, since the mechanism seems to be a handle/latch rather than a valve. I think you may be right the katakana word comes from a different language. That usually explains most odd katakana words.

Comment on Disproportionate Japanese by Blain A

Thu, 13 May 2010 16:30:44 +0000

Well, I don’t know about all the Japanese, but I do know that the word “cock” is not exclusive to Japanese. For example, a fuel cock is a hand-operated valve on motorcycles that stops the flow of gasoline to the carburetor. On some models, it also opens the valve to the reserve tank. It originates from the word “stopcock”, which itself is probably of either German or Dutch origin.

Comment on On the Origin of Species by sneaky

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:22:30 +0000

Not exactly sure what central flaw you are referring to.

Would it be focusing on individuals rather than populations?

Or his failure to reject the notion of Lamarckian inheritance?

Comment on On the Origin of Species by Jon Olson

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:05:02 +0000

Those phrases are used in philosophy and mathematics all the time because, yes, they are argumentative and philosophy and math are very close. I would bet that you would see even more of them in philosophy than math though. That is one reason people are able to argue about evolution so much. If you want to really see evolutionary theory laid out at its best read Alexander Rosenberg’s “The Structure of Biological Science.” It is a great book both scientifically and argumentatively. Plus afterwards you can truly call yourself an expert on the THEORY of evolution. Not its mechanics which most biologists know and are concerned with, but the theory.

The Origin of Species does get the central part of evolution wrong. Do you know its mistake? What did Darwin get wrong? He is pretty famous for it so I’m sure you know.

Comment on Grid Game: Latest C++ Opus by yorkii

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:32:52 +0000

How does one play it?