Leaderboard

its a syntax thing: “in” signifies the “change in attitude” caused an effect. i.e. “His change in attitude pleased his boss.” “of” signifies something caused the “change of attitude” i.e. “He had a change of attitude after his boss became angry.” in modern usage the difference between “in” vs “of” have become lost and are usually accepted as interchangeable in casual conversation. another use is inclusion vs cause “He died in grief.” means something other than grief killed him but he was experiencing grief when he died. “He died of grief.” means his grief killed him. ok, turning off the evil school Ma’arm

sorry, I saw sexfest and missed everything else

“English doesn’t borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.” (Terry Pratchett)

Oh, sod it.. I am back! Kind of… as work permits. No, I haven’t written anything, but I miss being able to post status updates, which technically should count. Warning: personal politics So… this week. The only thing sadder than Trump still being President of the USA, is Tony Blair, war criminal, telling a group of people with cameras pointed at him that if only the British people rise up against Brexit, the government will have to listen to them. That’s a little optimistic of him. Why, I seem to remember… it must be nearly fifteen years back, when a million people “rose up” to say: “Please don’t kill innocent Iraqi children, Mr. Blair!” And at the exact same time as we gathered in Hyde Park, Tony Blair was explaining to parliament why he would be completely ignoring us. He also talked a bit about ‘direction of travel’ with regard to Brexit. Direction of travel, aided in part by him, is why we are in this mess. In some ways, direction of travel, aided in part by democratic presidencies, is why we are all in this mess. Direction of travel can be directly illustrated by the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor, that these generations (from mine onwards) are less well off than their parents, the rise in street homelessness, the breakdown in social care, charging for doctors’ appointments, the americans who had their homes repossessed and could not possibly be bailed out for a few thousand (or even a few hundred), while the bankers who caused the misery got billions… and billions. I could go on… and on. Back to Blair, it’s almost as if he paid someone to find as many ironies as possible for him to add into his speech, though we shouldn’t expect anything less from a man who was somehow – inexplicably – made middle east peace envoy despite causing unimaginable terror and suffering there. This is on par with making Trump a leader on women’s issues, or electing him a spokesperson for an alliance against police violence towards minorities. Yes, I do believe Trump and Brexit are part of the same phenomenon. I’ve got to. I’m no fan of Brexit, I voted remain, but as I listen to Blair and I watch the insincere wringing of his hands, I almost hope it happens. Just to spite him. Just because it will force people to either wake up or drift further into the nightmare we’re all heading towards. I’m in the bottom third (and probably in the bottom third of that). I’ve got nothing to lose except everything, and if things stay the way they are – if the direction of travel continues – I’ll lose everything anyway. Right there. That’s exactly the sentiment that got Trump elected. It’s the sentiment that will see us leave the EU. I hope it’s not the sentiment that puts us (as I predicted a few months ago) on the wrong side of the next war in Europe. People of Britain and the US, please, do wake up. You can be anti-establishment without being anti-humanity. It’s not hard at all. It’s as easy as putting yourself in someone else’s place and deciding you’ll stand with them. We’ve evolved for this. Quite apart from all that, I don’t think the establishment mind Trump or Brexit at all, for all that people wish it. It kind of leads me to think they’re happy to use those things, as if the people have chosen their own diversion in a brand new game of misdirection, which leads to just one question… What the hell are they trying to make off with this time?

Nearly all of my work is now deleted from the other place. I feel good about this. What couldn’t be deleted (giftwork) is orphaned, and I just have a small handful of co-written fic to deal with. Still haven’t figured those out yet. I will. Unfortunately, my increased working hours are not even nearly over.

As a native English speaker, I will admit to not always knowing the exact rule, but I do know how to use the language. I have always understood “change in attitude” to refer to something which occurs over time, perhaps after learning new facts, or experiencing a situation for oneself leading to a revision of previously held opinions. A “change of attitude” has always carried a connotation of immediacy, as in a parent telling a child they had best have a change of attitude right this moment, or else there will be consequences.

Winning isn’t everything. Grammar may be!

Yes there are lots of things like these that are confusing. Like the difference between into and in to more in general. He dived in to the pool. He drove the car into the garage. For example.

No problem here with a little school marm making an appearance. What you described is similar to something that I had to look up while working email customer service : the difference between "log in" and "login". I found a similarity between those phrases and "make up" -vs.- "makeup". The verb form of the phrases is separate words: log in (or log into) and make up. The supplemental phrases are the other way; login is either noun or adjective and makeup is the same way (makeup meaning cosmetics or makeup case (?)). IOW you log into your account on the login page and you make up your face by applying blush makeup to it.

yes. and no problem. the teacher in me slipped out

Hi, good here. Been busy and writing has sort of been put to the side but starting up again I hope.

Gd news! Ch3 is over half the way done!

Hey, just so everyone knows I’m still alive, just been occupied with real world problems, sorry for the delay but writing again so hopefully it won’t be too long. And wow, ok I’ll try and answer what I can 1) the timeline is a bit screwy and vague because I meant to insinuate he went around the horn. Yep and thats why they flew, again probably need to address that but I just kind of left it to the reader O2 generation wasn't the main problem, it was CO2 removal which is done with scrubbers, it was the scrubbers that failed. one way to combat that is to add pure O2 to try and normalize the ratio. The sub has tracks, kind of like a large tank so it gets as close to shore as it can then creeps in on tracks true water expansion is faster than sound waves under water but thats for water under pressure. This would be an explosion at the bottom of the ice shelf with him well below the explosion. The wave propagation will slow as it travels into denser water. And remember Legion is an avatar so wherever there is a large enough collection of nannies, say some Max brought with him, he can download himself and group the nannies as a body. Also the reason he didn’t just kill everyone with nannies is that Max wanted to find out who was behind the attacks before he started killing people. it takes the nannies time to infiltrate, time they didn’t quite have And finally its a sic fi so because LOL