@Ryan S

I think this is the time that someone steps forward and claims that we live in a non-deterministic Universe because quantum mechanics somehow proves there's randomization, or some such nonsense.

Though, I'm in agreement with you. Your phrasing was well done and quite artful.

I made 175 off my hair. Kudos to her for getting 5 grand.

When a girl intends on providing damage to your scrotum without having initiated violence, you have full right to do to her as you please. My advise, the eye gouge. Totally not cool to grab a guy's sack. I hope she and her cohorts end up in prison.

We should itemize it. You should have to pay a specific amount for your seat, and a specific amount for the total sum of weight you add to the plane. It should be such that the airliners aren't making any more money but the riders are paying for their proper portions. If everyone on the plane was underweight and brought minimal luggage, the airliners would be making far more profit on saved fuel. Pay for what you use seems pretty simple to me.

@Krig

Ah, yes. I like your solution that requires at least 10 times the jailtime and enforcement being dished out right now. Surely we can get that number to under 1 in 1,500 or even 150. We'll let the people running the jails figure out what to do about the overpopulation.

Or we can realize that it's ultimately pretty Darwinian and just let the drug addicts get at their stash until they destroy themselves, let the ones that can recover recover, and stop wasting so much taxpayer money on this crap. No, I think I like your solution better where we just arrest more people.

Things like this are why HOA's exist.

I'm also going to step out and say that this is dumb. The responsibility for being offended is on the recipient. You choose whether or not you find something offensive in any degree of symbolism. Personally, I'm offended every time I see religious advertisements. Does it make it "OKAY" for me to go around telling them to all stop it? That's great that you understand that these aren't depictions of who you are. They're depictions of stereotypes pulled from factual cultural imagery. I see a geisha. I see a terrorist. I see an extra in a western film. Who cares? Cool, that's not you. But guess what! Culture has changed since these stereotypes were invented. And of course these people won't match the stereotypes. And because some people are having a hissy fit that means we have no access to the classic symbolism? Seriously? Stop ruining the planet by trying to control the actions of others when they have no direct effect on your liberties. If you really want to see us as "all equal" then just SHUT UP AND LET THESE PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT. Political correctness has no purpose other than to try to blind ourselves to how the world functions.

It looks like a pump for removing the water from a ship.

Unicorn Poop. Small Black. ;D

@JMM
I'd argue that laws are not to enforce morality but to maintain a minimum public standard of liberties.

That is to say, law exists to protect liberties, not enforce morality. If they were to enforce morality, we must first agree on what morality is. And you'll never see that.

Rape? Violation of liberties.
Murder? Violation of liberties.
Theft? Violation of liberties?
Smoking pot? Victimless crime....

Okay, maybe SOME people think it should be used to force morality. But I'm going to tell you that this goal is impossible because we don't agree on what morality is. But government exists first and foremost to protect the liberties of the populace. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Based on his drawing style, I'd imagine he has Aspergers.

"Don't you want to be number one? Here's your chance!"

But this article is about number two!

My issue here is when new words are coined that don't actually serve a purpose. Let's take my favorite portmanteau and my most hated as an example. Guesstimate and ginormous.

I HATE the word "guesstimate". I have never seen a word make educated people look stupid quicker. My reasoning here is that there is a limit to how much you can guess. You either know a base concept or you don't. If you "partially understand" the concept then you're pulling too many things into the concept. I'm referring to elementary concepts here. So, when guessing, you are effectively admitting to lacking appropriate understanding and simply trying to answer anyway. It is the same with estimating. There is a limit to how much one can guess or estimate. So there is nothing to be gained from the word "guesstimate" as it doesn't put any extra emphasis on the idea. It's simply another synonym that makes it all that much more confusing.

Ginormous, on the other hand, is different in terms of limits. There doesn't seem to be a limit to how large things can get. So if we take "gigantic" and "enormous" and combine them, it must be assumed that the object is far larger than gigantic or enormous would normally describe. This is possible because there's no known (reasonable) limit for the size of objects.

So, what about verbing? I think verbing is acceptable when there simply isn't a word to convey the subtle meaning one is attempting to carry out. But when a word is verbed because nerdism gets in the way, it's intolerable. Language may be free and fluid but it should ALSO be efficient.

I also hate that "verbed" is a verbism (new word referring to words that were verbed).

Let me fix this. My guess is "bar shot" and my choice is http://www.neatoshop.com/product/Bombs-Away-Shot-Glass

Shit, got beat. Sadly, I recognized this as an object you'd put into a cannon. Someone else mentioned bar shot. I couldn't think of the name. Kudos to them.

A girl with that much mouth talent should be older.