Who is missing?

[Matz]

like in 'don't believe the hype!'.......you didn't know that?! that line is older than most people here I think, ok maybe not, but its old

[Hype]

like in 'don't believe the hype!'.......you didn't know that?! that line is older than most people here I think, ok maybe not, but its old

No. Not like that. "Hype" is used by young folk in a totally different way now. Or it was last year. I don't know what they're saying now.

[Matz]

ok, I'll take your word for it

[Hype]

ok, I'll take your word for it

[Matz]

this clears up everything:

http://da.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GET+HYPE

or maybe not..

well, apparantly it's now used as an adjective as well as a noun....I guess it's a good thing that the english language evolves, but it's gonna take a little time before I start to incorporate it

[Hype]

I heard a teen say 'rachet' for the first time in person yesterday. I thought it might have been one of those fake "teen" words that marketers and media people make up to sell magazines to old people... but I guess it's real.

I remember saying a lot of stupid words because of skateboarding videos/magazines... I am not a California raisin.

[creep]

I heard a teen say 'rachet' for the first time in person yesterday. I thought it might have been one of those fake "teen" words that marketers and media people make up to sell magazines to old people... but I guess it's real.

I remember saying a lot of stupid words because of skateboarding videos/magazines... I am not a California raisin.

i'm not up on the latest dumb words the kids use these days but i know growing up the way to tell if you were from northern california and not southern california is by using the word "hella" ...like that's "hella cool" or you are "hella stupid". every now and then i still hear it used.

sayings that i hear all the time that do bother the shit out of me are:

"i'm not going to lie" * (this is the new "you know what i'm saying")
"100 (or 100 percent)"
"bae"
"on fleek"

[Larry B.]

[Bandit72]

"bae"
"on fleek"

What do those two mean??

My pet hate is

"Borrow us some money" instead of "can you lend me some money"

but my own personal favourite

"Innit" or "isn't it"

"He had to go down to the shops, innit"

eh? "In what". Shut up you twat.

[Hype]

"bae"
"on fleek"

What do those two mean??

My pet hate is

"Borrow us some money" instead of "can you lend me some money"

but my own personal favourite

"Innit" or "isn't it"

"He had to go down to the shops, innit"

eh? "In what". Shut up you twat.

"Borrow" instead of "lend" is a funny one. It sounds like something village folk in the UK would say. Like Claude Greengrass from the old series Heartbeat.

"innit" is one that we know over here in North America but that no one says.

"bae" is a cutesy way of saying "babe", mostly used by teen girls.
"on fleek" is a phrase that teens/black people used probably 5 years ago that became the stock phrase adults used to pretend the kids these days are crazier than they used to be, or that they are hip because they know a phrase the kids are using. I've never heard a young person say or write 'on fleek'.

'Cray' or 'cray-cray' was a thing a few years ago, but it also seems to have disappeared, because it makes people sound retarded.

[Bandit72]

As I remeber, "innit" was used by Muslims in the very late 80's and has since snowballed. It has also crept its way into the black community too. Some people say it after everything. I know languages evolve, but you need to keep some kind of decorum. I find it very lazy in a way.

[Artemis]

I had to look up " on fleek"
According to the Urban Dictionary:

the quality of being perfect, or on point i.e. Zayn Malik
Zayn is on fleek due to his ability to appear perfect at all times.

I've never heard anybody in real life say that or "bae".

A couple of former(middle-aged) co-workers said "cray-cray" and " vijayjay". I think they must have heard those on Oprah.

I don't mind "innit". I don't know if it's a London thing or all over England, but many people add "yeah" at the end of a sentence.

"

[ZOINK]

The one I hate the most is the redundant, "it is what it is."

[nausearockpig]

completely off topic but whatever. I hate it when people use 'unique' incorrectly. Something or someone can't be 'very unique' - unique indicates singularity - as in ONE.... they usually mean original or different but use unique.. fucking morons.

[Squee]

completely off topic but whatever. I hate it when people use 'unique' incorrectly. Something or someone can't be 'very unique' - unique indicates singularity - as in ONE.... they usually mean original or different but use unique.. fucking morons.

haha- You made me think of an English teacher I had in high school( in another lifetime it feels like now)who was correcting a book review I did ... thanks for the flashback.
She told me "something( or one) cannot be 'very unique'- either it is or it isn't - like being pregnant; either you are or you aren't"

I never forgot that and used the same example to my kids if they ever use the word incorrectly.

[Hype]

completely off topic but whatever. I hate it when people use 'unique' incorrectly. Something or someone can't be 'very unique' - unique indicates singularity - as in ONE.... they usually mean original or different but use unique.. fucking morons.

haha- You made me think of an English teacher I had in high school( in another lifetime it feels like now)who was correcting a book review I did ... thanks for the flashback.
She told me "something( or one) cannot be 'very unique'- either it is or it isn't - like being pregnant; either you are or you aren't"

I never forgot that and used the same example to my kids if they ever use the word incorrectly.

This reminds me of a longstanding and somewhat controversial philosophical dispute about knowledge. Peter Unger infamously argues (defending wholesale epistemic scepticism) that no one knows anything (or hardly anything), because 'knows' is an absolute term (you can't be said to more or less know something -- you either do or you don't know it), and no one can be said to absolutely know anything. This flies in the face of an entire field of philosophy and decision theory, according to which knowledge can be probabilistic and is a matter of degree of certainty.

[nausearockpig]

completely off topic but whatever. I hate it when people use 'unique' incorrectly. Something or someone can't be 'very unique' - unique indicates singularity - as in ONE.... they usually mean original or different but use unique.. fucking morons.

haha- You made me think of an English teacher I had in high school( in another lifetime it feels like now)who was correcting a book review I did ... thanks for the flashback.
She told me "something( or one) cannot be 'very unique'- either it is or it isn't - like being pregnant; either you are or you aren't"

I never forgot that and used the same example to my kids if they ever use the word incorrectly.

This reminds me of a longstanding and somewhat controversial philosophical dispute about knowledge. Peter Unger infamously argues (defending wholesale epistemic scepticism) that no one knows anything (or hardly anything), because 'knows' is an absolute term (you can't be said to more or less know something -- you either do or you don't know it), and no one can be said to absolutely know anything. This flies in the face of an entire field of philosophy and decision theory, according to which knowledge can be probabilistic and is a matter of degree of certainty.

Squee, you're welcome. I have plenty more....

Hype: you've gone and done it again confuddling us with big words........

I guess (the first?) part of that argument is defining what "know" means. I'm unsure if this is verified by whomever verifies the English language but dictionary.com has the definitions of 'know' as:

verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.

verb (used without object), knew, known, knowing.
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.

Then you'd have to somehow "measure" what "can" be known about a certain subject or topic, if that's possible, then compare that to the person's "knowledge level" of that subject.. For instance, I could "know" (by heart and recite exactly) all the words to all Jane's Addiction songs (assuming we can categorically say "there are X jane's songs, and these are the verified words") but can a doctor ever truly know all there is to know about his or her field of medicine, or all medicine? Probably not as that would be an evolving data set.

But before that you'd need to agree to whether that bloke's commentary is valid or a fucking wank...

[Hype]

Cool... you did some homework.

Probably we shouldn't get into a long discussion about this, but the first thing I'll say is that generally it's a bad idea to appeal to dictionary definitions, because dictionaries aren't normative -- they don't tell us how we *should* use language -- they are descriptive catalogs of how language has been (in the past) used. But philosophers / linguists / careful arguments try to use one meaning per term, and it needn't be a meaning that corresponds to any ordinary use of a word with the same spelling/sound. So the word 'knowledge' for philosophers is very specific (in the same way it is for psychologists).

Sometimes philosophers will fuck up and introduce subtle differences in the meaning/use of a term, and that will cause a fake disagreement (we call this a 'verbal dispute', because nothing is actually being disputed except the application of words). But in this case we're not after the use of words. Assume that by 'knowledge' we mean something different from and stronger than mere belief or opinion or guesswork or memory or whatever. The reason is that even though in some of these cases we may want to say we know, or someone knows, something, these conditions aren't sufficient to guarantee knowledge because many cases of these types fail as case of knowledge.

E.g., I may believe I saw you at the concert, and my reason is that I saw someone who looked exactly like you and was wearing clothes I know you own, and I believed you were going to be at the concert (you said you were going), but it turns out you were sick, so I can't have seen you. Nevertheless, we often take people at their word when they say they know things of this type. Sceptical arguments against knowledge prey on this inconsistency and the resultant failure to distinguish genuine knowledge from merely apparent knowledge.

I think I should probably stop now. (But I guess I don't know if I should...)

[nausearockpig]

Probably we shouldn't get into a long discussion about this, but the first thing I'll say is that generally it's a bad idea to appeal to dictionary definitions, because dictionaries aren't normative -- they don't tell us how we *should* use language -- they are descriptive catalogs of how language has been (in the past) used. But philosophers / linguists / careful arguments try to use one meaning per term, and it needn't be a meaning that corresponds to any ordinary use of a word with the same spelling/sound. So the word 'knowledge' for philosophers is very specific (in the same way it is for psychologists).

Sometimes philosophers will fuck up and introduce subtle differences in the meaning/use of a term, and that will cause a fake disagreement (we call this a 'verbal dispute', because nothing is actually being disputed except the application of words). But in this case we're not after the use of words. Assume that by 'knowledge' we mean something different from and stronger than mere belief or opinion or guesswork or memory or whatever. The reason is that even though in some of these cases we may want to say we know, or someone knows, something, these conditions aren't sufficient to guarantee knowledge because many cases of these types fail as case of knowledge.

E.g., I may believe I saw you at the concert, and my reason is that I saw someone who looked exactly like you and was wearing clothes I know you own, and I believed you were going to be at the concert (you said you were going), but it turns out you were sick, so I can't have seen you. Nevertheless, we often take people at their word when they say they know things of this type. Sceptical arguments against knowledge prey on this inconsistency and the resultant failure to distinguish genuine knowledge from merely apparent knowledge.

I think I should probably stop now. (But I guess I don't know if I should...)

I find those bits I bolded & italicised annoying to say the least... also nice pun...

[Hype]

You're right, those are annoying problems. But they don't generally arise because of some desire to be obtuse or cryptic (at least, for the most part), they arise because thinking clearly is difficult. Bertrand Russell once described (and I'm paraphrasing from a very hazy memory, so this is probably slightly off, but the general idea is something like:) philosophy as being this lifelong search for just a glimpse of the truth as it really is, and if a philosopher is lucky, s/he'll see it for a moment and then lose it again. The rest of the time we're stuck just figuring out what's wrong with all the other attempts to try to see the truth.

Wittgenstein famously said: "Philosophy begins when language goes on holiday." He didn't mean that philosophers are merely playing with words, but had a peculiar view of how to solve or dissolve philosophical problems (i.e., they're all problems of language, so if we clarify language, we remove the problems). There are also substantive problems, especially in practical philosophy, such as how to distinguish truly good things from merely preferred things (if we can/could!), and how it might be best to bring about good things for individuals or collectives. These are very difficult questions that lie at the heart of ethics and politics, and the answers aren't obvious. That's why ideology is dangerous. It purports to have a solution to problems philosophers know aren't solved, because even the correct questions to be asked aren't clear.

Basically: philosophy is difficult. It's not pseudo-scientific mysticism ala Deepak Chopra, and it's not exactly the same thing as science, though there is some overlap (and historically what we now call 'science' was a branch of 'natural philosophy', which makes it sound like that's all that should be left, if we're naturalists, but ... well, that story is complicated...)

[nausearockpig]

You're right, those are annoying problems. But they don't generally arise because of some desire to be obtuse or cryptic (at least, for the most part), they arise because thinking clearly is difficult. Bertrand Russell once described (and I'm paraphrasing from a very hazy memory, so this is probably slightly off, but the general idea is something like:) philosophy as being this lifelong search for just a glimpse of the truth as it really is, and if a philosopher is lucky, s/he'll see it for a moment and then lose it again. The rest of the time we're stuck just figuring out what's wrong with all the other attempts to try to see the truth.

Wittgenstein famously said: "Philosophy begins when language goes on holiday." He didn't mean that philosophers are merely playing with words, but had a peculiar view of how to solve or dissolve philosophical problems (i.e., they're all problems of language, so if we clarify language, we remove the problems). There are also substantive problems, especially in practical philosophy, such as how to distinguish truly good things from merely preferred things (if we can/could!), and how it might be best to bring about good things for individuals or collectives. These are very difficult questions that lie at the heart of ethics and politics, and the answers aren't obvious. That's why ideology is dangerous. It purports to have a solution to problems philosophers know aren't solved, because even the correct questions to be asked aren't clear.

Basically: philosophy is difficult. It's not pseudo-scientific mysticism ala Deepak Chopra, and it's not exactly the same thing as science, though there is some overlap (and historically what we now call 'science' was a branch of 'natural philosophy', which makes it sound like that's all that should be left, if we're naturalists, but ... well, that story is complicated...)

I propose http://aintnoright.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2898

[Angry Canine]

I just noticed this resurrected thread and It was nice to see my absence was noted early on.

I just looked in for a few weeks to see if Sonny revived Xiola, and being fed up with what the band was becoming didn't look for something else. Which was stupid, because I missed the un Jane's related conversation. I'd known a lot of people 10 years online, and met many in person.

I ran into Tikkuria, and Erik online elsewhere in the meantime, and if they were aware of this site they didn't mention it.

Something drew me into looking for you guys what turned out to be just weeks before I found my Dad dead, and between here and a car forum I had been on as long, without the gap, it helped a lot. Now my death is imminent, as I have been dying of Cirrhosis for 2 years plus, and it is getting ugly. I've spent 14 days of October in the Hospital, and had 17 litres of liver overflow fluid drained in 3 weeks and am in need of draining again. I have applied to move into assisted living handicapped/elderly apartments. This is the first time in a month I've been up to even getting on here. The ol' Grim Reaper is breathing down my neck now when he even gets out of my face. I'm circling the drain.

[nausearockpig]

I just noticed this resurrected thread and It was nice to see my absence was noted early on.

I just looked in for a few weeks to see if Sonny revived Xiola, and being fed up with what the band was becoming didn't look for something else. Which was stupid, because I missed the un Jane's related conversation. I'd known a lot of people 10 years online, and met many in person.

I ran into Tikkuria, and Erik online elsewhere in the meantime, and if they were aware of this site they didn't mention it.

Something drew me into looking for you guys what turned out to be just weeks before I found my Dad dead, and between here and a car forum I had been on as long, without the gap, it helped a lot. Now my death is imminent, as I have been dying of Cirrhosis for 2 years plus, and it is getting ugly. I've spent 14 days of October in the Hospital, and had 17 litres of liver overflow fluid drained in 3 weeks and am in need of draining again. I have applied to move into assisted living handicapped/elderly apartments. This is the first time in a month I've been up to even getting on here. The ol' Grim Reaper is breathing down my neck now when he even gets out of my face. I'm circling the drain.

Fuuuuckkkk man, no words.

[Angry Canine]

I just noticed this resurrected thread and It was nice to see my absence was noted early on.

I just looked in for a few weeks to see if Sonny revived Xiola, and being fed up with what the band was becoming didn't look for something else. Which was stupid, because I missed the un Jane's related conversation. I'd known a lot of people 10 years online, and met many in person.

I ran into Tikkuria, and Erik online elsewhere in the meantime, and if they were aware of this site they didn't mention it.

Something drew me into looking for you guys what turned out to be just weeks before I found my Dad dead, and between here and a car forum I had been on as long, without the gap, it helped a lot. Now my death is imminent, as I have been dying of Cirrhosis for 2 years plus, and it is getting ugly. I've spent 14 days of October in the Hospital, and had 17 litres of liver overflow fluid drained in 3 weeks and am in need of draining again. I have applied to move into assisted living handicapped/elderly apartments. This is the first time in a month I've been up to even getting on here. The ol' Grim Reaper is breathing down my neck now when he even gets out of my face. I'm circling the drain.

Fuuuuckkkk man, no words.

Yeah. It's pretty hard to talk about. I'm down to a week apart from draining fluid, and increasing amounts as well. Will be getting drained tomorrow, last week (on what was almost certainly my last birthday) was 6.3 litres. 12 days before that was 5.7. That 6.3 litres only got me about 30 hours to get a reasonable meal or 2 down, then it's just a few bites a day, there's just not room for anything to go through intestines. I'm also limited to 1.2litres of any fluids per 24/hr.

I feel like I'm just whining to even talk about what's going on, and most of the people in my life are still acting in denial, like I'm going to get better...but it's terminal and going downhill fast now. That's reality. For the last month and a day or so from getting drained I'm in misery, the rest of my time is in full on agony. I'm ready for it t o be over, but it's scary as Hell to think about.

[mockbee]

I just noticed this resurrected thread and It was nice to see my absence was noted early on.

I just looked in for a few weeks to see if Sonny revived Xiola, and being fed up with what the band was becoming didn't look for something else. Which was stupid, because I missed the un Jane's related conversation. I'd known a lot of people 10 years online, and met many in person.

I ran into Tikkuria, and Erik online elsewhere in the meantime, and if they were aware of this site they didn't mention it.

Something drew me into looking for you guys what turned out to be just weeks before I found my Dad dead, and between here and a car forum I had been on as long, without the gap, it helped a lot. Now my death is imminent, as I have been dying of Cirrhosis for 2 years plus, and it is getting ugly. I've spent 14 days of October in the Hospital, and had 17 litres of liver overflow fluid drained in 3 weeks and am in need of draining again. I have applied to move into assisted living handicapped/elderly apartments. This is the first time in a month I've been up to even getting on here. The ol' Grim Reaper is breathing down my neck now when he even gets out of my face. I'm circling the drain.

Fuuuuckkkk man, no words.

Yeah. It's pretty hard to talk about. I'm down to a week apart from draining fluid, and increasing amounts as well. Will be getting drained tomorrow, last week (on what was almost certainly my last birthday) was 6.3 litres. 12 days before that was 5.7. That 6.3 litres only got me about 30 hours to get a reasonable meal or 2 down, then it's just a few bites a day, there's just not room for anything to go through intestines. I'm also limited to 1.2litres of any fluids per 24/hr.

I feel like I'm just whining to even talk about what's going on, and most of the people in my life are still acting in denial, like I'm going to get better...but it's terminal and going downhill fast now. That's reality. For the last month and a day or so from getting drained I'm in misery, the rest of my time is in full on agony. I'm ready for it t o be over, but it's scary as Hell to think about.

Has to be scary. Sorry to hear.

We are all a breath away from death. Some more aware than others. I'd like to think there really is no end, just new beginnings, I mean there is no indication that's not the case....

Wishing you peace.