Quote from Sagaris
You know that "ventura ventura space people" phrase?
Where does that come from?
Where does that come from?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081954/
Afaik.
Manga Poll
Manga is the Japanese equivalent of comics
with a unique style and following. Join the revolution! Read some manga today!
Join #baka-updates @irc.irchighway.net
RSS Feed
Forums
Random Questions "Attempt II"
From User
Message Body
2nd wave MU user
Member2:38 am, May 21 2011
Posts: 7784
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081954/
Afaik.
Meh...
Member
9:32 am, May 21 2011
Posts: 937
Quote from komurczakthealien
what is correct, or more used:
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
It's 'off a chair'.
________________
There are times when you will miss what you never had. I wonder how you will find what you so desperately need.
Site Admin
6:32 pm, May 21 2011
Posts: 2275
komurczakthealien either's fine...
They are just differentiated by dialect.
________________
"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
They are just differentiated by dialect.
________________
"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
Member
7:05 pm, May 21 2011
Posts: 636
Quote from komurczakthealien
what is correct, or more used:
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
They're both correct.
"I fell from a chair" references the chair as a location.
"I fell off a chair" references the chair as a thing.
________________
"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Member
7:08 pm, May 21 2011
Posts: 510
Quote from Casey D. Geek
Can't use that in an exam~
*shakes head* that shouldn't be on a exam 'cause it's one of those things you'll look up until you've wired enough circuits that you know what the colors mean. wiki has a couple.
Mmm...Tasty
Member
12:41 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 497
Quote from mattai
Quote from komurczakthealien
what is correct, or more used:
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
1. I fell from a chair
2. I fell off a chair
(should there be "a"? )
or fell off of a chair?
just want to know the right way to say it.
They're both correct.
"I fell from a chair" references the chair as a location.
"I fell off a chair" references the chair as a thing.
You're right; "fell from" and "fell off" are both correct collocations.
But because, like you said, "fell from" refers to the chair as a location, you need to use the definite article "the" since you are referring to a specific chair.
________________
Member
1:14 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 425
hmm, OK.
so it's either "fell from the chair" or "fell off a chair".
Thanks guys
________________
if there is an option between "to do" and "not to do", I will always choose the latter.
"what kind of crazy, twisted conclusion is that...?" - banana bread no puding
so it's either "fell from the chair" or "fell off a chair".
Thanks guys
________________
if there is an option between "to do" and "not to do", I will always choose the latter.
"what kind of crazy, twisted conclusion is that...?" - banana bread no puding
Member
1:53 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 707
Are polar bears worth saving?
Member
2:08 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 425
Quote from Binturong
Are polar bears worth saving?
Of course they are, they are white, big and cuddly
No really, they are worth saving. Let's look at pandas, you wouldn't let pandas die off, would you?
________________
if there is an option between "to do" and "not to do", I will always choose the latter.
"what kind of crazy, twisted conclusion is that...?" - banana bread no puding
Member
2:43 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 707
Quote from komurczakthealien
No really, they are worth saving. Let's look at pandas, you wouldn't let pandas die off, would you?
Of course not, look how cute they are.
2nd wave MU user
Member3:18 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 7784
Depends what it means to be worthy for that.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
Mmm...Tasty
Member
3:33 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 497
Quote from Mamsmilk
Depends what it means to be worthy for that.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
You seem to be forgetting that most animals on the verge of extinction were "helped" a great deal by the interference from this conceited and meddlesome species called "homo sapiens"
.________________
2nd wave MU user
Member3:48 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 7784
Quote from WandereroftheDeep
Quote from Mamsmilk
Depends what it means to be worthy for that.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
You seem to be forgetting that most animals on the verge of extinction were "helped" a great deal by the interference from this conceited and meddlesome species called "homo sapiens"
.Your point?
What exactly does that change?
Humans are also part of the nature. All they do is natural.
Homo sapiens sapiens and cockroaches manage to survive the shit humans do.
So do rats.
Humans are strong while giant pandas are weak.
The inability to adapt makes species die. Barely any species
were killed to extinction by the aim to kill them to extinction.
Mmm...Tasty
Member
5:13 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 497
Quote from Mamsmilk
Quote from WandereroftheDeep
Quote from Mamsmilk
Depends what it means to be worthy for that.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
By nature's standards, organisms that cannot survive
by themselves, regardless of what causes the changes
in the surroundings, are not worth living. They have already
been excluded from the nature if they have to live out of human sympathy.
In the end, no animal is worth saving. Either they are not fitting for the
world they live in or they don't need any help to begin with.
Animals like giant pandas are outright retarded what comes to their
living diet and living habits. They're already doomed as it is.
You seem to be forgetting that most animals on the verge of extinction were "helped" a great deal by the interference from this conceited and meddlesome species called "homo sapiens"
.Your point?
What exactly does that change?
Humans are also part of the nature. All they do is natural.
Homo sapiens sapiens and cockroaches manage to survive the shit humans do.
So do rats.
Humans are strong while giant pandas are weak.
The inability to adapt makes species die. Barely any species
were killed to extinction by the aim to kill them to extinction.
May I ask how exactly polluting the seas with plastic waste and great quantities of oil is "natural"?
Really? I recall atomic bombs reducing entire cities and everything in it to lifeless heaps of concrete.
Well, I don't know about that. Pandas might "adapt" in same way as some polar bears have recently; simply turn those nasty humans into a nice proteine snack
.May I remind you of the cases of the thylacine and Steller's sea cow.
People were being encouraged to hunt thylacines and got a reward for every specimen they turned over; thus, the species was hunted to extinction.
Steller's sea cows were extinct in less than 27 years after they had been discovered by man; they were doing just fine before that.
________________
Certified addict
Member5:30 am, May 22 2011
Posts: 301
While I agree that there are some species that should be saved, Mams is technically right. Humans are a part of the world and as such we and anything we create are part of the natural order of things.
As for your thylacine example, well they were pretty much extinct on the mainland well before Europeans even discovered Australia, so I honestly don't think humans did much to wipe them out. We definitely helped to kill them off, but they would have died out within a few hundred years anyway. The sea cow is also a similar story - when they were discovered by Europeans it was estimated that there were only 1,500 left.
________________
As for your thylacine example, well they were pretty much extinct on the mainland well before Europeans even discovered Australia, so I honestly don't think humans did much to wipe them out. We definitely helped to kill them off, but they would have died out within a few hundred years anyway. The sea cow is also a similar story - when they were discovered by Europeans it was estimated that there were only 1,500 left.
________________
