Obama Is Reversing Bush’s Closed Government Policies

Transparent/honest government requires the use of FOIA act become very rare and not really needed.

EVERYTHING should be on line and available to the whole world.

Thats transparency.

Still a good first step. Yes, Change I could only hope to see.

It’s good to see Obama beginning to restore people’s confidence in government.

At the end of the day confidence in our government, the financial systems, our directions as a nation and our leadership is THE critical foundation we need restored.

# 3 Dallas said, “At the end of the day confidence in our government, the financial systems,”

Oh, poor, all to soon to be disappointed Dallas:

Alan Greenspan at a speech dated December 19, 2002 before the Economic Club of New York.

“Although the gold standard could hardly be portrayed as having produced a period of price tranquility, it was the case that the price level in 1929 was not much different, on net, from what it had been in 1800. But, in the two decades following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933, the consumer price index in the United States nearly doubled. And, in the four decades after that, prices quintupled. Monetary policy, unleashed from the constraint of domestic gold convertibility, has allowed a persistent over issuance of money. As recently as a decade ago, central bankers, having witnessed more than a half-century of chronic inflation, appeared to confirm that a fiat currency was inherently subject to excess.”

Executive orders with campaign speeches are nice, and nothing new. It’s the actions that matter.

Putting in fierce critics of George Bush to work for you, doesn’t mean they’ll be watchdogs in your administration. Just look at how the media treats Obama compared to Bush.

Step 1: Fix the Freedom of Information Act
Step 2: Demand that the Treasury release the names of the banks it has lent money to, and how much.

#6, #8 “I wish he’d drop the biofuels.”

Oddly, fossil fuels are nothing but the remains of dead bio. Oh, the irony.

This will last about a month or so.

#13 said

“This will last about a month or so.”

I’m not sure of the timeframe – but, sadly, I believe you are right.

Obama (and I wish him the best), let alone all the people he appoints, isn’t going to want to answer all of the questions all of the time. Or probably even most of them.

Just a matter of time.

I hope I’m wrong.

#16 Hmmm, who could be that bright mind that tells people that 4 letter acronym????

Well. A sockpuppet troll commented. We’ll keep count on how many dodge or are hypocritical…

Stay tuned.

#20 keep us posted on that. I highly encourage Bush lackey left overs to occupy yourselves on Bush’s war while we clean up his economic mess over here. The important thing is you get out of the way.

#20–Paddy===ok, I’ll bite. Its not illegal or a violation of GC to kill civilians==only to intentionally target them. So, my question is, how do you know this was done, what GC are you referring, or have you made up a new rule of your own, or AS I SUSPECT===have you totally misunderstood another pretty simple concept?

What a novel idea. An open government that promotes good citizen self government, involvement and awareness.

Those abusive bureaucrats must be fuming now, “how dare you let the public know”.

#17 – ‘dro

>>Hmmm, who could be that bright mind that
>>tells people that 4 letter acronym????

By the way, ‘dro, “STFU” is an abbreviation, not an acronym.

An acronym is something you say, like “S.W.A.T”, or “WiFi”, or, on occasion, POTUS. If it’s just the first letters of each word, like STFU or FBI, we call that an abbreviation.

#28 – Bobo

Aw, why did I just KNOW you were going to have to stick your nose in here?

Maybe in your pantywaisted Webster’s online dictionary, where everything is anything you want it to be, that definition holds.

In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a WORD (i.e., something that is spoken, such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.

Read up on it in Fischer, Roswitha. (1998). Lexical change in present-day English: A corpus-based study of the motivation, institutionalization, and productivity of creative neologisms. Tübingen: G. Narr.

Latter day know-it-alls use “acronym” (when they mean abbreviation) in the same sentence where they say “between you and I”, and for the same reason. They erroneously believe that it makes them appear more erudite. In reality, it flags them as a pretentious know-nothing.

As far as me admitting an error goes….when I make one, let me know. I’ll be the first to admit it.

And you really need to upgrade your dictionary, son. Does that thing you use have Ebonics words in it too?

[As far as my admitting an error goes. - Possessive with the participle. - ed.]

#30 – Bobo

I think it’s past your bedtime.

>>let me get this now, you are saying that
>>acronyms don’t exist in writing, they can
>>only be spoken?

What I said was (and I quote) “an acronym is the name for a WORD (i.e., something that is spoken, such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.”

So SONAR is an acronym. RADAR is an acronym. FUBAR and snafu are acronyms. FEMA is an acronym. NATO is an acronym. FBI, CIA, ASPCA, NSA, NYPD, NYFD, USA, and IBM are all abbreviation.

From about dot grammar dot com:

““The difference between acronyms and abbreviations is this: acronyms are proper words created from the initial letter or two of the words in a phrase, and they are pronounced like other words (cf. snafu, radar, laser, or UNESCO). By contrast, abbreviations do not form proper words, and so they are pronounced as strings of letters, for example, S.O.B., IOU, U.S.A., MP, lp, or tv.”
(Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, Euphemism and Dysphemism, Oxford University Press, 1991).

As to where they can can exist, you’ll like this: They can appear ANYWHERE. In writing, in speech, in braille, TTY, Morse code, you can see them with 3D glasses, you can spell them out in semaphore, anywhere at all! It’s the speakability of the entity that determines its acronymicity. Whether it is actually spoken in a given instance is immaterial.

Got it? STFU is not an acronym.

#29 – Mr. Mustard,

Ebonics words are, or will become, words as well. Unfortunately, dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive.

Sometime soon, by common but incorrect usage, acronym may be expanded to include STFU, even though it is not a word. To the best of my knowledge, this has not happened yet.

It has, however, made it to descriptive dictionaries that a correct usage of the word nauseous is to feel sick, as opposed to causing nausea in others. As you are likely aware, traditional usage was described by the sentence The nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated. Over time, common incorrect usage made it acceptable to say I fee nauseous or even I am nauseous, both of which would make any grammatically correct speaker 100 years ago nauseated.

Well I for one am invigorated by this discussion. I’d have to go back and check but was NATO and FEMA acronyms to begin with? I doubt it. ((PS–my online websters says NATO is an abbreviation , same with FEMA))

SCUBA and even its brother NAUI are good examples describing underwater breathing technology and their related certification procedures. Scuba is now generic as is Kleenix by way of separate etymologies. Is SCOTUS and POTUS currently only an abbreviation and just on the cups of being an acronym?

Is it correct or not to say that an acronym is “any” abbreviation that can be spoken by the usual customary rules==of which SYL is an exception? And if SYL is an exception, why is it not Syl?

Poor old Musty, calcified in the easiest of monolithic characterizations when the fact of the matter is words are definitional, and given that the defining is done by human beings, those definitions are changing all the time.

Certain outlooks on life want, even need, the certainty of simple rules that brook no uncertain line, ambiguity, or change. So much of life is just the contrary.

#20 Exactly. Obama authorizes a missile strike on a sovereign nation, Pakistan, that kills 21 people and yet none of the anti-war zealots call him on it. They were yelling for Bush’s head just weeks ago when he did the same exact thing. http://tinyurl.com/d27rx7

Transparency in that, hopefully, you won’t see the crap this government’s gonna pull under Obama like this: http://tinyurl.com/baccay . I love that Charlie Rangel thinks a little thing like State jurisdiction should be overcome by the Federal government. I guess that’s why the Governor choose someone on the side of the State for Senator of New York.

bah, he’s just softening us up with feel-good
politics so we’ll going along with the official
formation of the North American Union in 2010 and beg to work on his NASCO superhighway when the dollar and country collapses in a few months..

ho hum.. nice to see him making an effort though.

-s

(watch gold/silver in the next weeks..the bankers ran out of tarp money to continue to manipulate the stockmarkets and gold price.)

#25 By open government you mean this? http://tinyurl.com/a8ngzt
…or to what happened on friday? http://tinyurl.com/ddwr8r

Dunno, let me know which one is a better example of an effort towards government transparency.

A further step towards manipulating democracy to make it look as if you’re the real thing when in reality authoritarianism is being imposed.

So far, I see Obama going one step forward, one back. Let’s hope it gets better and doesn’t turn into a one step forward, two steps back.

#28 It’s easy why not. Fault acceptance is not for the weak of self respect. It’d destroy whatever small bit of it he has left. That’s why he tries so hard to bend reality.

Oh, and to MiMu. You do not only falter in English. Your Spanish sucks rhino.

Just so you don’t keep on making a fool of yourself whenever you spout that out, “Si se puede” is not the translation for “Yes we can”. That thing means “Si podemos” in Spanish, got it?

Even Google gets it right. Don’t try Google doing it from Spanish to English, it seems they hired mustard for that part.

“Si se puede” is “It can be done” in English.

You’ll wonder, why don’t I want MiMu to make a fool of himself? ‘Cause I’m not there to watch it.

#35 – Bobbo

>>Well I for one am invigorated by
>>this discussion.

Let’s hope that results in an improvement in your cerebral blood flow. You sense: nonsense ratio is going right into the crapper.

For example:

>>I’d have to go back and check but was NATO
>>and FEMA acronyms to begin with? I doubt it.

Huh? WTF??? Of co urse they were acronyms to begin with. What else could they have been? Legitimate words that didn’t stand for anything? And some beaurocrat one day said “Hey, let’s make up an organization, the initials of which will spell out the common, everyday word NATO, and we can find something to do with that organization… perhaps something involving the North Atlantic! And maybe a treaty!”.

You’re losing it, Bobo, in your effort to avoid having to say “Huh. I didn’t know the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation”.

>>((PS–my online websters says NATO is an
>>abbreviation , same with FEMA))

Bobo, your online websters is like a two-bit whore. It will say anything you want it to say. Check a quality source.

>>Poor old Musty, calcified in the easiest of
>>monolithic characterizations when the fact
>>of the matter is words are definitional,

Bobo, you’re the reason we have school shootings, and why the US educational system is in the shitter that it’s in. Sure, in the “let’s not be competitive, we can ALL win” world of Bobbonia, anything means everything, and we all make up our own special definitions for every word. Same thing with math. There are no “right” answers, only our own special answers.

For people who take language seriously, and who don’t confuse “that” with “which”, “was” with “were”, and who know how to use prepositional cases correctly, an acronym is separate and distince from an abbreviation.

I guess your anything-goes approach to language is in keeping with your hip-and-happening, avante-garde, slightly dangerous, “intellectual” approach to religion.

They’re both bullshit.

And you would be well advised to STFU before you make even more of a ninny out of yourself.

#41 – ‘dro

>>Oh, and to MiMu. You do not only falter in
>>English. Your Spanish sucks rhino.

‘dro, I’ll let my Spanish go mano-a-mano with your Kuzconian patois any time.

I am fully aware of the meaning of “Si se puede”. It was the rallying cry of the United Farm Workers Union, popularized by César Chavez and Dolores Huerta in the 1970’s. It was adopted by Obama’s campaign in 2008. For an example, see

http://tinyurl.com/ckhthp

If you spoke even ONE language adequately, you would know that many catch phrases in one language are often not translated literally to another language.

You might also realize that there is no exact English translation for the third person reflexive conjugation for Spanish verbs; thus, “Si, se puede” can be translated to English as either “Yes, we can”, or (more literally) “Yes, one can do it”. By the same token, “Let’s go” can be translated to the French “allons y” or “On y va”.

>>“Si se puede” is “It can be done” in English.

Well, if you knew a little more Spanish and a little more English, ‘dro, you would know that “It can be done” would translate literally to Spanish as “puede ser hecho”, which would not make a good campaign slogan.

In any case, try saying “Si, podemos” at a UWF rally or an Obama campaign, and nobody will know what you’re talking about. Say “Si, se puede”, and folks will raise their fists to the sky and shout “Right on, homes!”.

I REALLY think you should seriously consider S’ing TFU.

You’re not helping your case any by continuing to blabber on.

#46 – Bobo

>>Why would that be Mr. Mustard??? Huh? Huh?
>>Whyyyiieee?

I tire of playing GET tutor for you, m’hijito. If you’re really interested in the distinction between an acronym (although I’ve already told you all you really need to know), do some research on it. Come back after the redness of your face subsides.

And certainly the meaning of words changes over time. Just because that change sometimes occurs because of ignorance on the part of the users is no reason to embrace ignorance as a general life strategy.

There are those who find no difference among their, there, and they’re. Heck, you say ‘em all the same. Or between its and it’s. Or compliment and complement. Or between a simile and a metaphor. Or between asterisk and “axterick”. Or between e.g. and i.e. Or between “among” and “between”, for that matter.

That’s why one finds abominations such as “nucular” in your online Websters.

If you choose the sloppy, imprecise approach to communication, that’s your cross to bear. Maybe your avante-garde, slightly dangerous, hip-and-happening approach to grammar will serve you well. And maybe I’m just a boat, beating on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. A past where one word meant thing, and another word meant another thing, rather than the whole language be a bowl of raisinless oatmeal, with all words meaning something, not clearly defined, but similar to what all the other words mean.

And as such, I distinguish between an acronym and an abbreviation. As do those who enjoy clear communication.

My take-away conclusion from this little discussion is that you didn’t know the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation. And rather than just admit it, you try to obfuscate you ignorance with whackadoodle punctuation, pretzel logic, gratuitous references to set theory, bloviation, and denial.

#14, Cow-Paddy,

Shooting missiles into civilian occupied structures where no one is attacking you from, is a War Crime.

Then why aren’t you calling for Israel to turn itself in to the World court? That is more of a habit with them. That plus using white phosphorus on civilians.

#47, Mustard,

And as such, I distinguish between an acronym and an abbreviation. As do those who enjoy clear communication.

I agree. Even here I skip over those who fail to use proper grammar in their posts. If we fail to follow the proper rules of grammar / spelling, then we end up with several dialects that end up losing any translations. Clarity of communication requires that words mean something definitive, NOT whatever someone WANTS them to mean.

Although I knew the difference between acronyms and abbreviations, your clear definitions reminded me of something I had not given much thought to in many a year.

#43 said: “…Let’s hope that results in an improvement in your cerebral blood flow.”

Now, talk about something you gravely lack.

#45 What a poor defense that was. You rather make Obama a dummy copycat than accept you lack of language skills.

If I were as low self steemed as you, I would tell you that “si podemos” was and still is the warcry of latin american commies, which is true. But since I’m not like you, I won’t go there.

I bet you just repeat the “Si se puede” crap that the illegals started to yell in Spanish as a translation of the Obama slogan. You keep using illegals as your prime source for foreign language. I bet you get a bunch of linguistic scholars as illegal aliens.

Then, you try to play the ad advisor by saying that your mistake is more catchy than “si podemos”. Well, let me tell you that your form is dull and plain generic. It doesn’t convey anything while “si podemos” empowers and motivates, just in the same way that “It can be done” is absolutely lame compared to “yes we can”.

And not content with putting one foot in your mouth, you go the extra mile with this pearl: “puede ser hecho”. Man, that doesn’t make any sense. The porper way is “puede hacerse” or even “se puede hacer”. But I can’t blame you, I guess the illegals that work for you speak that way.

This is HILARIOUS!

A couple truthful comments (as in NeoLibs saying exact same thing to Bush over exactly same actions) and NeoLibs go absolutely psychotic.

I knew that extremists on both sides were TOTALLY insane. This reaction on the left now confirms, with no other diagnosis possible.

Thanks guys. Also, thanks to the moderates who jumped in. Don’t bother though.

http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NATO

NATO
One entry found.

Main Entry:
NATO
Function:
abbreviation

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

With all your stiff brained stalking horse issue regarding punctuation, I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to see you write that words – - I say WORDS – - can be capitalized any willy-nilly way you wish when EVERYBODY knows that standard punctuation puts the body of a word/WORD in lower case with the first letter capitalized if it starts a sentence, list etc.

Abbrieviations are placed in CAPS. My own hip, with it, avant-guarde, ee cumingsesque Capitalization is for the obvious humor and whimsy.

And this is a laugh: go ahead and pronounce the speakable acronym SQL which is also always presented in CAPS all the time==but we both trust Scott’s affirmation on this point.

I don’t use food stamps. The local christian charity delivers free food to my door.

#57 – Boobo

>>I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to see you write that words –
>>- I say WORDS – - can be capitalized any willy-nilly
>>way you wish when EVERYBODY knows blah blah blah…

Boobo, you and ‘dro should just quit it. Stop rubbing your hands together in glee, cackling “hey homes, let’s us put some words in Mustard’s mouth!!”.

What I SAID was (and you might want to write this down) “There is no “rule” governing whether or not acronyms should be written in upper case, title caps, or lower case.“.

There are some conventions, but that’s waaaaay too subtle and nuanced for a fellow who won’t even admit the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation.

Isn’t Dora the Explorer on now? Or Hannah Montana? Or are you still fiddling with your digital converter box, so you won’t miss out on any of those shows after The Changeover?

Sheesh. Give it up.

#60 – Paddy-RAMBO

>>Not really. But, it’s nice to document the nut cases.

You mean like the ones who claim to be peddling influence in “DC” and hobnobbing with international diplomats, when in real life they’re ringing up coaxial cables and banana plugs at Radio Shack?

#56 Are you gonna keep at it? you want more?

“It can” is literlly translated as “se puede”. That is the strict literal translation. “Puede” could be used but is far from literal.

“Hecho” is not the past tense of “hacer”. It is its adjective or “participio” form of the verb, not a tense of the verb (not present, past nor future)

Here’s a little lesson for ya (BTW, the numbers imply the person the verb is being used as (first, second or third):

Hacer (past tenses only)

Pasado 1: hice 2: hiciste 3: hizo 1: hicimos 2: hicisteis 3: hicieron

Copretérito 1: hacía 2: hacías 3: hacía 1: hacíamos 2: hacíais 3: hacían

Pospretérito 1: haría 2: harías 3: haría 1: haríamos 2: haríais 3: harían

Pasado Subjuntivo 1: hiciera 2: hicieras 3: hiciera 1: hiciéramos 2: hicierais 3: hicieran 1: hiciese 2: hicieses 3: hiciese 1: hiciésemos 2: hicieseis 3: hiciesen

From the Royal Spanish Academy:

hecho, cha.

(Del part. irreg. de hacer; lat. factus)

These are abbeviations. “Part.” means “participio”; “irreg.” means “irregular” and “lat.” means “latin”

Takes an ignorant to say that “hecho” is a tense of the verb “hacer”. Takes an even bigger ignorant to say which tense.

#63 – ‘dro

>>“Hecho” is not the past tense of “hacer”.

Once you learn to read (any language), ‘dro, you will be able to discern that I never said “hecho” was the past tense of hacer. I said it is the PAST PARTICIPLE, coño. Cabrón. Pendejo. As in “no has HECHO nada”. Or as in “has HECHO la puñeta”. Or even as in “puede ser HECHO”, if you wish to translate “it can be done” literally from English.

>>“It can” is literlly translated as “se puede”.

No. It’s not. Literlly or otherwise. “Se puede” is third person singular conjugation of a reflexive verb. If you want to translate it, it would be “One can”, or “they can”, although there’s no literal translation into English for “se”. And the literal translation from English to Spanish of “it can be done” (with “it can” being non-reflexive third person singular) is “puede ser hecho”. Although that is not something that would ever be said (or “nunca será DICHO”, if you prefer), it is the LITERAL translation. If you don’t believe me, go ask a kindergarten teacher.

As to the rest of your copy ‘n’ paste exercise, pfffft. I was conjugating Spanish verbs while you were still sucking on your mama’s titty. Aspirations are great, but don’t go beyond your abilities.

Give it up now, ‘dro. This too, shall pass. The harder you hammer on your incorrect assertions, the more of a maricón you appear to be.

Oh, and ‘dro? Since you seem to like copy and paste from grammar texts, I’m surprised that you left out the rest of the “indicativo” and “subjuntivo” and “otras formas” sections, so here they are for your enlightenment. Note especially the last line. The formatting will be fucked up, but figuring it out will give you something to do, so you don’t embarrass yourself any further.
_________________________________________

Presente perfecto I have done he hecho has hecho ha hecho hemos hecho habéis hecho han hecho
Futuro perfecto I will have done habré hecho habrás hecho habrá hecho habremos hecho habréis hecho habrán hecho
Pluscuamperfecto I had done había hecho habías hecho había hecho habíamos hecho habíais hecho habían hecho
Pretérito anterior1 I had done hube hecho hubiste hecho hubo hecho hubimos hecho hubisteis hecho hubieron hecho
Condicional perfecto I would have done habría hecho habrías hecho habría hecho habríamos hecho habríais hecho habrían hecho

Subjuntivo
Presente I do, am doing haga hagas haga hagamos hagáis hagan
Imperfecto2 I did, was doing hiciera hicieras hiciera hiciéramos hicierais hicieran
Futuro1 I will do hiciere hicieres hiciere hiciéremos hiciereis hicieren
Presente perfecto I have done, did haya hecho hayas hecho haya hecho hayamos hecho hayáis hecho hayan hecho
Futuro perfecto1 I will have done hubiere hecho hubieres hecho hubiere hecho hubiéremos hecho hubiereis hecho hubieren hecho
Pluscuamperfecto3 I had done hubiera hecho hubieras hecho hubiera hecho hubiéramos hecho hubierais hecho hubieran hecho

Participio pasado done hecho

Bobbo and ‘dro,

Please, accept that Mustard knows what he talks about.

Lyin’ Mike,

I think you have been thoroghly owned on this one.

Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,

You are still an asshole who hasn’t a clue about this or, for that matter, a clue on anything.

$69 No, he doesn’t. He’s just a spoiled brat that cannot accept he is wrong.

More war crime atrocities committed by the Obama regime:

Karzai’s latest criticism follows a Saturday Jan 24 raid in Laghman province that the U.S. says killed 15 armed militants, including a woman with an RPG, but that Afghan officials say killed civilians.

Two women and three children were among the 16 dead civilians, Karzai said in a statement.

#57 – bobbo,

I tried several definite acronyms on merriam webster. Not a single one of them was listed as an acronym. I think they don’t really make a distinction for that category, check scuba, laser, and snafu for references.

I think the real answer is that all acronyms are indeed abbreviations. Not all abbreviations are acronyms. Typing the word in all upper case has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. In fact, when an acronym goes from all caps, as laser, scuba, and radar all were at one time, they become ordinary words. Some ordinary words may also be acronyms, as evidenced by this. However, it does not mean they are not acronyms. When one sees the derivation of the word, the history is still obvious.

So, NATO is an abbreviation that is also an acronym, as is FEMA, because both are typically pronounced as words. I have never ever heard anyone spell out NATO. I have never ever heard anyone attempt to pronounce STFU. (Although, for grins, I did try it in my head just now. It didn’t go well.)

So, I would personally not dispute that NATO is an abbreviation any more than I would dispute that a square is a rectangle. However, when looking at a perfect square, I will say that I always call it a square and only acknowledge its generality as a rectangle when pressed. Ditto for acronyms. I would acknowledge them as a form of abbreviation, for indeed, they do abbreviate the concept into a new shorter word. But, when I look at laser or NATO, I call both acronyms.

If you choose to look at a square and call it a rectangle, you will not be incorrect. But, you may sound a tad silly.

#75 – Scottie

>>I have never ever heard anyone attempt to pronounce
>>STFU. (Although, for grins, I did try it in my head
>>just now. It didn’t go well.)

I had never heard anyone attempt to pronounce USPS. After a particularly unpleasant failure-to-deliver experience with the USPS, I referred to them as YucePiss to a friend of mine who works for the Postal Service.

He liked it.

Watch for YucePiss in upcoming television and radio ads for the post office.

At Post #30 I thanked Musty for teaching/reminding me of something then I went on to what Musty himself could learn if he wished–that the relationship between abbreviations and acronyms is “dynamic.” While many things are set in concrete, others are not. Always good to know when to be flexible. In fact, we would all benefit if we started with flexibility before we got all calcified.

In that I learned and Musty did not, I’ll just have to give my self another point.

Very productive day.

#80 – Uncle Dave,

They tried. A few outcasts refused. About 70-80,000 years ago, we had a total world population between 2 and 7 thousand. We came (fingers close together) that close to avoiding a global mass extinction!! Damn.

Kurt Vonnegut commented to the effect that most people have nothing to say most of the time. We talk nonetheless so that if by chance we happen to have something important to say we will know how to do it.

I would much rather argue the meaning of words than grunt which way the Woolly Mammoth is heading. To each his own I guess.

Well Musty, I certainly gave you a point as well for reminding us of the subcategory of abbreviations which (that?) are not words that (which?) are acronyms that (which?) are words. WoW! I hadn’t described it that way before. Thats (which is?) how you got back to being No 2 in my book.

Sounds more like a magic trick. Also makes me wonder just how much I have forgotten as I’m sure I new that at one time. I came across my 8th Grade Essay on Wilson’s 14 Points. I remember the category but could not remember a single point until I started reading the essay and then I could only remember 5.

From essay to ignorance in only a few decades.

#85 – Bobo

btw, my point at the beginning of this nightmare without end was to point out to ‘dro that “STFU” is not an acronym.

With all his forays into faux gramática española, I hope that point was not lost on him.

‘dro: STFU is not an acronym.

#88 – ‘dro

>>#87 MiMu: I beg to differ.

Oh no. Say it ain’t so, ‘dro.

After all these thousands of words, you STILL don’t recognize the incontrovertible fact that STFU is NOT AN ACRONYM?

Christ. You’re like a multi-drug-resistant bacterium. No matter how high a dose of cleansing knowledge you are exposed to, you remain infected with ignorance.

No wonder you guys are always “developing”, but never quite seem to make it to “developed” status.

#90 – ‘dro

So. Let me see if I understand. You still claim that STFU is an acronym? “Yes” or “No” will suffice. Not necessary to go all Bobbonian on me, with a 10,000-word answer.

Moochos grassioss

hehe, funny Pedro.

Aren’t you going to start a similar conversation about Spanish conjugation?

This is sure helping people discuss the thread topic. Then again, it is typical for people to twist an issue into something else if they have no way to criticize it.

#96, Cow-Paddy,

If grammar is so hot, why not put some of your grammar to use and tell us where in the Constitution is forbids Congress from regulating CEO’s wages and give a citation of where Pelosi said she wants to settle Gitmo detainees on American soil?