« first day (2420 days earlier)      last day (2509 days later) » 

12:28 AM
@KitZ.Fox or forgiven. Or both.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:44 AM
@tchrist Editor number 15 comes along and now this gets snuck into policy... "Remember, you still have to write an actual answer, in your own words. A post that consists only of copied text, even when attributed, is not your work either. Use quotes sparingly, to support your own words."
A post that consists of attributed copied text is not plagiarism. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and **passing them off as one's own.**
–Google
;p
 
2:11 AM
@Mazura Even when duly attributed, copypasta is not your own work. We expect expert answers here, and that's going to take actual effort
If you have nothing original to say, it's best to say nothing at all rather than risk being mistaken for a mindless mockingbird.
 
What you expect and what's required by the rules seem to be at odds.
This is the only applicable part of your link IMO : "Do not copy the complete text of external sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own. And always give proper credit to the author and site where you found the text, including a direct link to it."
 
Go ahead and ask Management.
Since you feel that they support answers with nothing of your own effort.
I'm fairly certain that they do not, and that they moreover have said as much. But it's not like I've never been wrong. Maybe this is one of those times. Go ahead: you pays your money, you takes your chances.
I further feel that questions whose only answers aim for 100% copypasta lists should be closed.
They aren't expert answers.
 
I think management has left it up to us by design. Provided that you're not trying to pass off that work as your own. ^^ mmmhmmm. We've danced this number before.
 
They're Too Broad. And Primarily Opinion Based.
 
yeah, you just hate SWRs... I'm on to you ;)
 
2:21 AM
They are useless drivel.
Lazy SOBs.
They are off-topic writing advice REQUESTS. They aren't even actual questions.
 
I really like that new guy's formatting. You'll make a good SEer outta him yet. I just worry that people see your diamond and think it's from on high or something.
 
We are not EnglishRequests.StackExchange.COM
Nope, I'm not high.
 
The data shows differently.
 
Show
 
datum isn't a word
 
2:25 AM
Verbum est.
 
You can't say that and hate SWRs....
 
yawns
 
yep. have a good one
 
2:40 AM
@tchrist: Given the new spin reality has taken since the last election, I wonder if it might not be worth reopening this question:
18
Q: Does a "fact" have to be true?

RobustoI'm struggling to decide whether to jettison use of the word fact, because the definition appears to be not solid enough to support continued usage. What do I mean by that? Look at one "meaning ladder" (taken from Random House via TFD Online) among several on the same page: fact 1. somethin...

I think it gets at something different from the question it was closed as a dupe of.
 
 
4 hours later…
NVZ
6:28 AM
Can we have this tagged 'featured'?
3
Q: Auto review comments can save you time

NVZThere is an extension available for Google Chrome called AutoReviewComments, which can save you time if you frequent the review queues, or guide new users with your comments, and I've been using it for quite a while. Install it → Read instructions → Use it. Ask me questions, when you have them....

I wish more people were aware of such useful things.
 
NVZ
7:14 AM
I have a feature request. I initially typed it all in ELU meta question box. But chose to post it on MSE instead.
Have a look. Suggestions welcome.
1
Q: How about we delete copypasted answers by new users?

NVZI frequent the review queues (on ELU SE), edit to improve answers from new users, and upvote them often, and later find out that they're merely copypastas of earlier well-received answers. I sometimes leave a comment guiding the new user, or notifying others about it being a duplicate. I'd lik...

 
 
5 hours later…
user288256
12:41 PM
It is so hot today I almost died.
 
@Ghalib You're probably measuring in Kelvin; those temperatures are always dangerously high.
 
@Ghalib How hot is so hot?
 
user288256
@tchrist hah, no we Celsius here. It is in mid thirties these days.
 
user288256
@AndrewLeach Like 35 C
 
12:48 PM
"It's not the heat; it's the humidity."
 
user288256
Well, humidity makes it worse I guess.
 
jinx
 
user288256
Yeah
 
user288256
heh
 
Oh. In Pakistan? We had 36C in southern England last week (but only for a day).
 
user288256
12:49 PM
@AndrewLeach oh I see. Was it bearable? Without AC I mean.
 
user288256
That is, outside in the open.
 
user288256
I just hope we get rains here soon
 
@AndrewLeach Welcome to Colorado!
 
It was OK in the shade. I have a soft-top car, and it made for a pleasant drive -- not so pleasant when not moving, though.
 
user288256
12:53 PM
Cool.
 
user288256
@tchrist Is that graph of your region?
 
Yes.
 
user288256
Okay
 
It's from NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. We have two weather stations, one at 5331 feet and the other at 6184 feet up on the Mesa. eol.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/…
Each thousand feet of elevation gain has a commensurate loss of two degrees centigrade of temperature.
Also, for each thousand feet of elevation gain, water boils at a temperature cooler by one degree centigrade. So at 10,000 feet your water boils at 90C and your tea will never taste right.
 
user288256
Yeah, that makes sense.
 
user288256
1:03 PM
It is fun to camp at those places.
 
One of our mountains has an espresso coffee bar at the top of it, and it's so high that they have to make stuff differently. It's like they can use only skim milk for the cappuccinos or it won't foam up right; something like that.
@Ghalib For some reason I had thought you were in Africa.
 
user288256
They must use pressure cookers or something like that to make tea I'm sure.
 
user288256
@tchrist Oh. Why? I mean I'm curious.
 
Probably no reason.
Perhaps you said something once early on that I misconstrued, and never verified my mistake.
 
user288256
Oh okay.
 
1:12 PM
The restaurant atop Pike's Peak stands over 14,000 feet in elevation. It's dizzying to most people at first.
I realize this is nothing to the Himalayas.
The people who work there live up there 6 out of 7 days of the week so they get used to it.
 
user288256
Yeah, I know what you mean. I once visited Babusar Pass, it is in Gilgit Baltistan area here, and I was having some difficulty in breathing, but it was quite fun and there were hailstones.
 
Hail is a daily occurrence up high.
 
user288256
Its elevation is quite high, around 13,691′
 
user288256
I see.
 
Colorado has 53 fourteeners and 637 thirteeners.
No fifteeners.
 
user288256
1:18 PM
Cool.
 
user288256
Here we have lots of tall mountains but they are unsafe to climb. Like this mountain Nanga Parbat, I have been near its base camp but that's it. I hear people die in climbing it.
 
The hail up high is not usually the giant kind though.
 
user288256
It is quite high, around 26,660′.
 
user288256
Yeah I experienced small hailstones
 
The fourteeners are all climbed all the time; some are "easy" walk-ups, some are technical (need climbing gear), and most are in between.
Yes, 26k is above the death zone, which is like 23-26k.
The kill zone.
 
user288256
1:22 PM
Yeah.
 
> The Death Zone lies above 26,000ft in the highest altitudes of the mountain. The oxygen level here is not adequate to support human life because the body simply can’t adapt. At this altitude the body uses oxygen faster than it can be replaced, so if climbers linger in this region too long without supplementary oxygen, they will feel like they’re slowly suffocating.
If you're in an unpressurized aircraft, you're supposed to have supplemental oxygen starting at 14,000 feet, and recommended above 12 or 12.5; I forget.
But there is more oxygen on the top of a 14,000 foot mountain than in air that's otherwise at that elevation, as the blanket of atmosphere ascends with you as you climb. But not well.
 
user288256
I once saw a video in which they take a helicopter to the top of Everest or maybe K2, don't remember which one. But the bird struggles up there and seems like it is about to crash.
 
user288256
They must have been using portable oxygen with them though.
 
1:39 PM
> And he would go to picture galleries, they said, and he would ask one, did one like his tie? God knows, said Rose, one did not.
> But in her opinion one liked Mr Ramsay all the better for thinking that ...
> But if they knew, could they tell one what they knew?
(from To the Lighthouse)
I don't know what it is about these ones that rings different from the contemporary use of this pronoun.
 
@Ghalib I'm pretty sure that helicopters have low elevation ceilings.
> Turbine-engined helicopters can reach around 25,000 feet. But the maximum height at which a helicopter can hover is much lower - a high performance helicopter like the Agusta A109E can hover at 10,400 feet.
12
Q: What is the vertical limit of helicopter flight capabilities called?

Dan DascalescuWhat is the name of the maximum height that a helicopter can fly at, given that air density decreases altitude? I recall it as vertical limit, but I can't find a Wikipedia page for it other than a movie of the same title, which seems to concern mountain climbing altitudes.

Wow, somebody actually asked for a term in English somewhere other than on ELU!!!!
9
A: Why can't helicopters fly at high altitudes?

AirsickDon't believe everything you see in the movies. Doubly so if the movie originated in Hollywood. The world altitude record for a helicopter is 40,814ft, some 11,000 feet higher then Everest, set in 1972 Reference: Wikipedia In 2005 Didier DelSalle famously touched down on the summit of Everest i...

 
2:54 PM
I went to the Amazon announcement but their spokesperson just kept droning on and on ...
 
user288256
@MetaEd You were right yesterday, your practice with making dad jokes is showing.
 
user288256
=)
 
user288256
@tchrist I wonder why there is such a difference between what height it can reach and what's the normal height it can hover.
 
Well, flying is a form of controlled falling, whereas hovering is a form of controlled not-falling.
I imagine that it is easier to fall than to not-fall.
Takes denser air to beat against.
Reminds me of how some aircraft can't get enough lift to take off when it's too hot.
 
Gravity. It's serious.
 
3:24 PM
It's just a theory.
 
4:19 PM
@tchrist We've got to risk implosion. It's our only chance.
 
@MetaEd Gravity doesn't exist. The Earth sucks.
 
4:47 PM
@Mitch GRAVITY IS FAKE NEWS!
 
user288256
5:40 PM
@Mitch The Earth sucks, but not all of it. Do you believe in other worlds? Like life after death? Just out of curiosity.
 
user288256
I'm not asking about Star Trek type of worlds. It is a sincere question.
 
6:25 PM
@Mitch No less than you do.
 
7:27 PM
@Færd Yes but compared to Earth I only suck a little bit.
 
You suck her the exact amount she does you.
 
@Færd Not at all.
 
Oh?
 
NVZ
@MetaEd Wrong close vote reason chosen, you have. "Please include research" would've been better.
3
Q: More general term for micromanage

NoahI'm looking for a verb similar to micromanage that can be used in non-business contexts such as to describe a parent or a spouse. Sara _____ her children; she denies them any autonomy in making personal choices and insists on knowing every minute detail about how they spend their time.

 
 
1 hour later…
8:42 PM
@Ghalib Since you say 'sincere' I have to request clarification. What do you mean by 'believe', 'other', and 'worlds'? Do you mean other locations than Earth that harbor biotic mechanisms, that however unlike the current DNA/ATP based systems, exhibit some kind of reproduction (sexual/asexual/whatever)? Or do you mean something else?
 
14
Q: I am [who/whom] G-d made me

SAHPlease fill in the blank with the correct word and explain your choice. I am __ G-d made me. A. who B. whom Some people have suggested I elaborate on this question so here goes. The above was not copied from any test. It is a question about basically two things: (1) whether an objective co...

Really? This still?
Did people fall on their heads one time too many?
"I am X God made me" is ungrammatical whatever relative pronoun is put in for X.
a relative pronoun replaces a noun i a verb formation, whatever the valency.
God made me. Who made me? God did. God made who? (or whom if you're from two centuries ago).
I saw the man who God made or I saw the god who made me.
 
@Mitch Can you explain that?
 
The relative pronoun replaces the subject or object (or even the indirect object if there is one. I saw the man to whom John gave the book.
@Cerberus It's not a prescriptive rule. It is a descriptive rule.
 
But the verb make can have—and has, in this semantic frame—three arguments.
 
8:53 PM
If you say "I am who God made me", what is the relative clause and what is 'who' replacing?
 
Subject, object, and object complement.
It replaces the object complement.
 
@Cerberus Which three arguments? Can you make a sentence (without relativization)?
 
God made me a man.
 
God made me a sandwich?
 
No, that's a different semantic role (indirect object).
Unless God created you as a sandwich.
 
8:54 PM
I am who God made a man
 
That makes little sense.
God did not make me an animal, for he had enough animals. He made me a man.
 
@Cerberus I intended it as "God made a sandwich for me" but transformed as one usually does.
 
But that is a different thematic role.
 
@Cerberus So you're saying "I am who God made a man" makes little sense?
 
Well, it is possible in an unusual context.
 
8:56 PM
"I am for whom God made a sandwich" is weird but works.
Can you make a sentence out of God, I, me, made without relativizing?
@Cerberus I"m still not sure what it is you're saying makes little sense.
 
> I Wish I Was a Mallard But God Made Me a Pekin Instead
 
Are you saying that the OPs sentence is perfectly understandable and grammatical? Or somewhat weird but interpretable with effort as grammatical? Or complete bonkers?
 
I am what God made me, a pekin.
 
how about 'who'?
 
@Mitch It sounds fine to me, and not super unusual.
Well, that's the thing: I would rather use what than whom, but I find whom OK too.
 
8:59 PM
So the original would be "God made me me"?
 
But you did not seem to agree with me about the trivalent predicate frame of make.
@Mitch It doesn't make sense to have two me's.
God made me a pekin.
 
@Cerberus Why not? Because that's the non-relativized version.
 
Because it sounds like wishy-washy New Age stuff.
 
@Cerberus don't worry (too much) about semantics. We're trying to give an interpretation/parsing that makes grammatical sense.
 
@Mitch No: whom was used like what, as a relative pronoun with antecedent enclosed.
Or whatever the proper term is.
 
9:01 PM
Also, I don't know what a pekin is.
 
A duck.
 
@Cerberus ? I don't get it. Can you make an unrelativized version of the OPs sentence?
"I am who God made a pekin"?
(semantic context: God is magic)
"I am who God made a sandwich for"
 
I am who God made a pekin
 
@Mitch That's not possible, because the antecedent is not explicit, for it is enclosed in the relative pronoun.
 
9:04 PM
I am who God made me
God made me a pekin
God made me me
 
> All because of that jellyfish, I became confidant in whom God made me to be.
 
@Cerberus ?? I don't know what you mean by antecedent. Isn't 'I' the antecedent?
 
It is not!
 
"God made me to be me"
 
The antecedent is not explicit. It is not written.
 
9:06 PM
@Cerberus Then what is?
 
Just like with what.
> This truth allowed me to be comfortable with whom God made me to be.
 
OK. instead of as a realtive clause let's move to interrogatories which act the same.
 
> I want to be happy with whom God made me to be.
 
Who made me? God made me.
Who did God make? God made me.
 
Whom did God make me? A creature of sin.
 
9:08 PM
??
 
God made me a creature of sin.
 
"What did God make me?"
 
It seems you don't like who(m) as a relative pronoun with enclosed antecedent.
 
YOu may have part of a convincing argument, but 'make' is not right for people.
 
I gave you a couple of quotations from books.
 
9:09 PM
@Cerberus "Who did God make?" is fine
or "I am who God made" is fine
who is the pronoun replacing the (unknown) object of 'made'
 
Whom God made, we do not know.
 
@Cerberus sure, perfectly fine, I've given a number of similar examples.
 
@Mitch Yes, and it so it replaced the unknown object complement in I am whom God made me.
Just like I am what God made me.
 
the trivalent use of 'made' is problematic
 
I don't think that is your problem here.
It's the use of who(m) with enclosed antecedent.
You're not accepting that.
It is indeed uncommon.
 
9:12 PM
@Cerberus OK. So 'what' is fine. but 'who' or 'whom' is not.
 
But less so with God.
@Mitch Yes: you accept what to be with enclosed antecedent, but not who(m).
 
@Cerberus for one sentient being to make another sentient being is not particularly common or easy to fathom, even for moms.
 
Why not?
He made me a sinner, not an angel.
Gods can do that.
Arthur made me a manager, not a cleaner, you fool! So do as I say or be fired!
 
@Cerberus I think the valency of 'make' and types of direct and inderct objects only allows "I am what God made me".
 
I don't agree.
 
9:14 PM
That is still ungainly, but not as much as the OP sentence
God made me who I am
 
Make can take two animate words as object and object complement.
Besides, what can refer to animate nouns as well, at least indirectly, as in the construction in question.
 
"God made me who I am" converted to "I am who God made me" is just really ungainly if meaningful at all. I can't hear trivalent 'made' only bivalent.
 
@tchrist I need something mellifluous to read aloud. Any suggestions?
 
@Mitch You cannot because you don't want to see whom as a relative pronoun with enclosed antecedent.
Everything else is a red herring, I believe.
It is indeed uncommon in the English language in general to use it in that manner.
 
@Cerberus I'm trying to remove all the red herrings. Frankly none of this trivalency or subcategorization of 'make' is mentioned at all in the question, answers, or comments.
@Cerberus I wish someone would make me a sandwich.
I would feel a lot better about this whole thing then
 
9:20 PM
I am whom the Emperor appointed.
I am he whom the Emperor appointed.
You should experience the same discomfort with the first sentence.
Which means the same thing as the second sentence.
 
@Cerberus I am totally fine with the first sentence
 
But perhaps the red herring of "make with object complement* made the whole thing even more difficult to stomach for you.
@Mitch What's the antecedent of whom?
 
Whom did the Emperor appoint? The emperor appointed me.
The emperor is who appointed me
I am who the emperor appointed.
 
But I is not the antecedent of whom.
 
@Cerberus the object of 'appointed'
@Cerberus it resolves that way eventually
 
9:24 PM
@Mitch What what word is that?
@Mitch But that's not the same thing as an antecedent.
 
but in the subtree headed by appoint, the anaphor is the object of 'appoint'
 
It is only the copula that connects I to the unseen antecedent.
It's not the relative pronoun that does that.
 
@Cerberus you haven't told me what you mean by antecedent
(I think you are referring to what I would call the anaphor)
 
A relative pronoun has an antecedent, the noun phrase* to which it refers back*.
The man whom I saw is stupid: the man is the antecedent of whom.
 
and so you're saying that 'I' is not the antecedent of whom in "I am who God made" and also not in "I am who God made me"?
 
9:27 PM
Yes.
 
and you're saying there is none at all in those two sentences?
 
But the unseen antecedent and I happen to refer to the same person in reality; that's because the copula am connects those two, subject I and subject complement <unseen word>.
 
so "Who God made" is a stand alone NP in this sentence, not a relative clause?
 
It is a relative clause where the antecedent is invisible and enclosed in who, so you might say the total is a stand-alone noun phrase, yes.
 
"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"
 
9:30 PM
Yes, like that.
 
hm... not perfect
 
That's a fine example.
As you see, there is no visible antecedent to whom.
 
The gods make mad whom they would destroy
 
Same thing.
 
The gods make some people mad
The gods make those whom they would destroy mad
YOu can't say "the gods make whom they would destroy mad"
 
9:32 PM
The reason is that the invisible antecedent would be a personal pronoun, which would hardly add any information at all. Like those.
@Mitch That's just a stylistic issue.
 
"What I like about this pizza is the stuffed cheese crust"
 
Same thing, yes.
Except that what is always used with enclosed antecedent, whereas whom is rarely so used.
You can't even add an antecedent to what or it be wrong.
Except in lower-class English, I suppose.
 
"God made me me" is OK with me and allows a parsing of the original that makes sense.
But that is not at all clear from the OP
 
The pizza wot I saw was nasty.
 
@Cerberus hm... that's another story, 'what' being used as 'that' not as a relative pronoun.
@KitZ.Fox The Honeydrippers
 
9:36 PM
@Mitch But that's how whom is different: it normally has an antecedent.
 
@Cerberus Whomever, man.
 
@Mitch Actually, that is a relative pronoun.
@MetaEd Yes, whomever works like what, with enclosed antecedent.
 
@Cerberus hm... also, yes.
 
I am whomever God made me.
 
9:52 PM
Godmorrow, man whom God marr'd.
 
Good morrow!
 
 
1 hour later…
11:24 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in answer, link at end of answer: Pinpointing British accents by user242895 on english.SE
 

« first day (2420 days earlier)      last day (2509 days later) »