How much does Dunamis love Cashews?
- He eats them once and a while
- He eats cashews pretty much b-weekly.
- Dunamis has a cashew problem.
- Dunamis? He hates nuts.
0
voters
How much does Dunamis love Cashews?
“once and a while”?
Bloody Americans! It should be “once in a while”.
Another one I cannot stand is “I could care less”. No, you ignoramus, it should be “I couldn’t care less”. I.e. you care so little, you could care no less than you already care! “I could care less” implies you do actually care!!
Carry on, Gobbo.
Dinamus eats cachoooz 1once in a while, butt he lieks tea and balownie much more with breadd.
SOmtimes he was at mi house and the monkey said to mhimn that he should lay off, but he just wouldn’t listne.
Demamamus doesn;'t talk much because he’s so busy fantasizing about peanuts and bullets.
He’s not 3 teeth. If he ever smiled you could see.
My pet puupapp was from that place and she had 12 teeth so that was beteter.
Head hits keyboard
wqqpwo3riqke
Hello F(r)iends,
- Gobbo is Canadian.
- Most folks in the U.S. of A. use “once in a while”
- I imagine so do most folks in Canada.
- No country officially speaks English south of the U.S.
Let’s aim for accuracy, here.
-Thirst
Perfectionists.
-
Canada is essentially an American colony. It’s an easy error to make if you’re European.
-
Nonetheless, they can’t pronounce ‘mirror’ or ‘error’. Or ‘asthma’, though as we’ve already established in this case, nor can the British.
-
I could be wrong, but don’t a lot of Canadians speak French? Or at least pretend to speak French?
-
I thought that most of the Carribean nations spoke English.
Hello F(r)iends,
Sure, sure… Ireland, England, Tomato, Tomahto
Nah, they just pretend because they have a bunch of pretentious assholes… 
Ok fine, but they still say “once in a while”…
-Thirst
meerer
errer
azma
is that not how they’re pronounced?
Where are the cashews? I need my fix. I will settle for Brazils though.
Um, what is the topic on this thread?
…cashews…
duh
Yes, we have a french province (Quebec) where it is the official language. New Bruinswick is also about half francophone.
Most people can speak basic french through public schooling. Many, like my brother, can speak it fluently through the french immersion programs we offer.
Loves them with the passion of a thousand suns.
The second is more like err’r, from my very limited knowledge of US accents (only been there once, don’t watch a huge amount of TV). Obviously, people can pronounce words any way that they like, I just like being a fascist about it because I find it amusing.
Oh sure you are right! cashews! I see it now you all are talking about cashews.( smiles and walks backwards towards the door, her eyes watching everyone )
I’m slightly astonished that you didn’t mention how most Americans pronounce “iron” like I-urn. 
Can one really quantify love, or any sensation?
Once quantified, does that number mean anything?
Does quantifying it allow for other forms of mathematical manipulation?
Concerning this, one can standardize a universal ideal of a behavioral state of a majority during certain contexts and describe, in language, its state as an identity; a case of “love,” etc.
What we have as a description of love is a dominant theme which, for reasons of manufacture, is collective in society; its general criterion is the same everywhere: extreme passion, a longing to possess, a respect, [add your own metaphors].
The language matches itself to the behavioral tendencies of a/the group and out of this evolves a kind of dichotomy that gets mistreated in philosophy, if not totally ignored. On one hand, there is the collective language of the speakers who “say” the word “love” in a familiar context, on the other, there are the material conditions which evolved the use of the term in language in efforts to assist the social organization. The linguists suppose that the meaning of the term is fashioned by intersubjectivity and/or a triangulation, as if the term itself never started to exist, has always existed, and will never exist, simultaneously, since it “happens” inside a web of individuals subjects who do not share the same material objective truth states. Clearly this cannot be.
Therefore, what we have as a proof of the terms existence is not a reference to any specific case where it is used in a personal or public statement, but rather a retrospective consideration of the material contexts that existed to cause the term to evolve, and the many metaphors which follow.
Language cannot be extraneous, which means that anything said has a meaning, but at the same time, not everything said has its originations in the context where it is used. So with love we might say something like:
"When I think of “love,” I do not think of “love” here or there, as this or that, but I think of a sort of habituation in the practice of language culture where I notice certain social states, certain classes, certain goals, certain dramas. I would look at a picture of the world at time X and point to the people and activities in the picture and say this is a case of “love,” but I could not interview any one individual in the group or the group in general to find an explaination for the meaning of “love.”
Language is always a derivative of social context, it does not generate new social context. You can know this by keeping in mind that the intent to speak always precedes the speaking; one is moved to speak, one is determined to speak, by the environment, …then one speaks.
Here, we do not “do” anything new in existence by speaking. We are instead answering to an economical context which has us in its grip. It makes us make words. It is indeed quantifiable.
in my opinion this thread is just bait to lure out dumanis into posting again.
i searched for hidden meaning,because ILP likes playing mind games,but did’nt find anything satisfying.