Why Cecilia??? why not lux or oldest girl since she was 17 and it would of
made more sense for therese to have her own room since she oldest. But It would of made better sense to have lux and cecilia in one room and rest girls in other. But after Cecilia died they could of gave lux and bonnie the room and keep mary and therese in other room.
in the book, one of the girls said cecilia was different than the rest of them. "she was weird and they just wanted to live."
shareYeah she was different than her sisters. The other 4 were more alike. Cecila was a dreamer. Into nature and stuff like that. She didn't see, to care about being popular, going to dances, dating..etc like the other girls.
shareBecause she was special.
shareIf your baby sister killed herself and your parents kept her room as a shrine to her, not packing away a single thing, her pictures still on the walls, her socks still on the floor, hairbrushes on the dresser and toys left to gather dust... would you want to move in there and live with her ghost, with the constant reminders that that's the exact spot where she ran and jumped out of the window to her death? Even if they removed all her stuff, I know I wouldn't.
he mirror... it's broken.
Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look the way I feel.
OP, it's "would have" not "would of!" Did you never wonder about the origin of "would've?"
It's certainly not only you, though.
Does no one bother to learn English anymore? One day soon, someone is going to majorly f&*k up an important issue, due to spelling, grammar and/or factual errors. Of course, THEY won't be damaged, but a lot of "innocent" people will...
Does no one bother to just let simple grammar mistakes go anymore?
Holy tits C-Lashed...calm down.
Anywho. I just finished the book and was kind of disappointed in it. From what I gather most people love the movie so I might give it a shot. I wondered why Cecilia had her own room too. I wonder if the girls always gave her space and didn't really associate with her, even when she was living? Like they just let her have the room to herself?
Why condone ignorance, idiocy, and/or stupidity? Do most people want to come off as uneducated, unsophisticated and "low-brow?" I think not. Personally, I welcome corrections--whether it is grammatical, spelling, pronunciation, etc.. This is another way to learn--beyond University, reading, and so on.
SCENARIO: A patient is prescribed a prescription medication and the Chemist gets the spelling wrong. Which has lead to serious complications or even death. Sadly, these mistakes are no longer rare incidents. I have pharmacists in my family, thus I've been told of these happenings.
It begins with nonchalance about "simple grammar mistakes." I've read extensively about the USA, with the rest of the world following suit, dumbing-down at an alarming rate. This fact will have numerous implications on everyone's future. Where will we be in 20 years? 50?
No one should have to "defend" what is right. Education and intelligence were once valued. As well as the adage that "Knowledge is Power."
[deleted]
Ok, normally I don't even post on these boards. But...all I was getting at was you sounded like you freaked the hell out over someone accidentally typing the wrong word....it doesn't mean they're stupid. It doesn't mean they are uneducated. You do not have to speak with perfect grammar to go places in this world. Your post had nothing to do with the topic either, and that kind of irked me because all the OP was looking for was an answer/opinion. Not an English lesson. I type and speak with great grammar and excelled in English, however, I do sometimes slip up and make an error here and there because typing is not the same as speaking, and sometimes I say one thing in my head and type another. Just because you decided to parade your "perfect" English-speaking abilities and the ability to spot grammar mistakes doesn't mean everyone likes it. You sound like Hermione Granger: "It's Levi-OH-sa, not Levi-oh-SA." Just saying.
Have a nice day.
I think Stephen Fry put it very well: youtu.be/J7E-aoXLZGY
Many of us have a reflex to fix things; I always feel like editing out punctuation errors when I spot them, yet I try to control myself as nothing good would come out of it in the end. Obsessing over standard grammar is like criticising people who wear ripped jeans/listen to dubstep/have tattoos. With nothing to gain one stands to lose a great deal, and I don't just mean coming across as unpleasant and snooty; I mean getting lost in the obsession, mistaking breaches of formal rules for lack of intelligence. Knowledge is indeed power, but it is content, rather than orthodoxy of expression, that makes it so.
I'm glad that there are people here on the boards who care for right or wrong English. Consider that here are many many poeple who are nor native speakers in English (like me) and we want to learn, so leaving errors without comment means teaching us wrong English.
English is not my first language. Any corrections are welcome.
It begins with nonchalance about "simple grammar mistakes." I've read extensively about the USA, with the rest of the world following suit, dumbing-down at an alarming rate. This fact will have numerous implications on everyone's future. Where will we be in 20 years? 50?
How much welfare is a single person 18-65 years old entitled to? What average percentage of states' or national budget is welfare?
shareI think single folks get screwed when it comes to welfare and one reason there is so many homeless on the streets. But I read the other day that poor families with children on average have an equivalent take home income of $36-40,000 a year when all government aid is considered, cash, housing, utilities, ObamaPhones, health care, food stamps, private donations, etc.
That's one reason why I don't agree with the government statistics on the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. when compared to other countries. Most of the poor in the U.S. are living as comparable to the middle classes of Europe. Owning autos, LED TVs, Internet, computers, major and minor household appliances, living space, etc.
*************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
It's true that the said poor in the U.S. are much better off than many of the people in other countries, but one of the reasons they are beneath the demarcation is that the segment of the middle-class who rely on retail sales to make a living necessitates a population with a larger percentage of disposable income. We're talking specifically about America, a country with an abundancy of natural resources, we shouldn't compare the standard of living for older capitalist countries to it, there are far too many factors to take into account; in doing so, what that leaves us with is the standard of living that we consider the norm that has been arbitrary for decades if not centuries. Electricity, for example, was a luxury at one time. Beyond food, shelter and clothing, what can't be considered frills?
Americans measure the success of the capitalist system by the distribution of goods, not for the social equality to give everyone the fairest shot at success.
It's difficult to incentivise the working poor without risking further disenfranchisement of deserving welfare recipients. Whatever the government has taken from my paychecks to subsidize welfare, I've never begrudged them for it.
Americans measure the success of the capitalist system by the distribution of goods, not for the social equality to give everyone the fairest shot at success
It's difficult to incentivise the working poor without risking further disenfranchisement of deserving welfare recipients. Whatever the government has taken from my paychecks to subsidize welfare, I've never begrudged them for it.
In trying to give the working poor a chance to get further along, not just a small raise, but perhaps funding for education, it's an opportunity that welfare recipients miss out on. There's no getting around that no matter where you live. If there are only so many given position available for advancement, somebody is not going make it. It would be nice to buy into the abstraction that everybody wins because now the world is more efficient for the distribution of goods, but the reality is, it's more likely that whomever advances will make more money, be poised for even further advancement, and relevant to this topic of this paragraph, give their kids an upper leg, perpetuating the cycle of social inequality.
I shouldn't have made it sound like the US is the only country or the free market economy is the only system of distribution this occurs in. The analogy of King Arthurs' round table shows how pervasive this is. King Arthur had the round table brought in for meetings after he realized the long table didn't reflect the true egalitarian nature of his knights' assembly because his place at the head of the emphasized his position. Sitting at the round table, however, it soon became apparent the pecking order was not vanquished, social status was implied by the distance the knights sat from their king. (And here, I suppose, the pecking order's new incarnation would somehow emerge in the planned seating arrangement that disallowed the more powerful knights from sitting near each other?) Anyhow, I see you recognize this because you mention there will always be poor people.
Understanding the relevance of class is essential in socio-economic discourse when we get beyond the fact that in this society, our basic needs are provided for (except for, of course, the single unemployed who must find work or be handicapped, or are willing to wait in line at a soup kitchen). I really deep down don't think those unemployed people who are sitting on their butts are too lazy to work, I have a strong conviction they wouldn't mind the menial jobs they can get this afternoon if they want; what happens is they are socially stigmatized for working at those jobs. There's a reason why people jump out windows when the stock market crashes despite the likelihood that they could still lead middle-class lives that others would be envious of. It's common to know others if not be the person who will not take certain jobs because it is "beneath" them. The world is filled with unemployed 50 year old men--I'm not clear on how they subsist, but this is a trend--who will not sully themselves with unsuitable employment. There are telemarketing agencies who tout their employees are too smart to flip burgers, yet the actual practice of what they do leaves quite a bit to be desired. We can go back and forth all day, but this fear of downward or long stints of lateral mobility near the bottom is a real phenomena requiring acknowledgement. It is as true that a good percentage of the people in that rut can never break away from it as it is that there are those who can or could've done so.
If it were a fair world we would be rewarded for our efforts, not our results. We can't even begin to make provisions for this, so I won't elaborate.
So, that's where I usually arrive to when trying to sort this problem. It's a bothersome abstraction that can't be surmounted. We've learned in the past that you can't legislate morality, that is, we can't make the segment of the population who look down on the unsuccessful to respect them (they don't even respect unsuccessful people who've failed despite their best efforts). When we resort to case studies to evince the ongoing available opportunities or quote statistics about how millions were able to ultimately thrive in this country, we're talking above the mass of non-entities to whom a fatalistic attitude regarding their prospects is not only expected, but also appropriate so they can come to terms with the life they're bound to live.
P.S. What may have happened to Trip Fontaine his adult years.
http://www.firedrive.com/file/8DA11919E63E564D
Kim Novak wouldn't do what she did at the end. No way.
P.S.S. I didn't watch the Oscars this year, nor have I looked up the highlights.
I really deep down don't think those unemployed people who are sitting on their butts are too lazy to work. I have a strong conviction they wouldn't mind the menial jobs they can get this afternoon if they want; what happens is they are socially stigmatized for working at those jobs.
As a former proof reader for major publications it amazes me to see grammar and spelling mistakes by reporters in the media. From the NY Times on down the line it seems to get worse by the year. I don't really understand some of the errors when most word processing programs correct spelling and some grammar errors. What I see are not just your everyday typos but dumb things like there for their and to and too.
Go to YouTube and watch some of the 'man on the street' interviews. Especially the Jay Leno and the ones on geography. I watched one the other day that was done on a college campus and not one person knew what part of the world Israel was located. Answers like "Southern Europe" or "near Africa". Then no one knew what the people in Amsterdam were called. "Amsterdamians" was one answer. Asked what language is spoken in England and they answered, "British" or didn't know.
The U.S. is certainly going down the tubes and nationwide testing has proven it. High school seniors with a 6th grade reading level, 9th grade students who couldn't read a newspaper, and many who didn't know what the U.S. Constitution was created for and who thought the Declaration of Independence was part of the Constitution.
Why condone ignorance, idiocy, and/or stupidity?
o most people want to come off as uneducated, unsophisticated and "low-brow?" I think not.
Personally, I welcome corrections--whether it is grammatical, spelling, pronunciation, etc.. This is another way to learn--beyond University, reading, and so on.
SCENARIO: A patient is prescribed a prescription medication
"Does no one bother to just let simple grammar mistakes go anymore?"
No, it's not a simple grammar mistake, it's getting an entire thought process wrong. I've never seen "would of" written longhand but people type it all the time, like the collective intelligence of the human race is getting lower.
++++++
Love means never having to say you're ugly. - The Abominable Dr. Phibes
I'm with you c-lashed!!! Plus, may everyone who uses a calculator for math be pulled into the streets and chemically castrated!
shareI knew people who had to have a house MADE for them with 4 childrens bedrooms because their 4 children couldn't get along with eachother. Sometimes having people room together who get along makes all the difference in life.
I missed the beginning of the movie but I read earlier in this thread that Cecilia 'LIKED' girls... is that meaning that she was gay [or at least weird in this movie] ? if so, I think giving her her own room was a smart idea.
Oh Thank you God! Thank you so BLOODY much!Basil Fawlty
That was kinda dumb all 4 girls seemed to sure one BR when the house was bring enough for more.
share