"that's what I'm talking about" - when the person never said anything, to begin with.
Pet pevees
More perfect.
Example.
A woman is either perfect or imperfect. She is not "more perfect" after losing her flab. However, on may have "more perfect women" if adding perfect members to the harem.
So.
A woman might be "closer to perfection", but that's not the same as "more perfect".
For my harem I want Sophie Ellis Bextor.
hmm.
output as follows then. There are no such thing as more perfect, only perfect! or the lack thereof.
@Elmo.
Nice of you to help Grover here, he's such a mess!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o04Kqp6GyWM
Example.
A woman is either perfect or imperfect. She is not "more perfect" after losing her flab. However, on may have "more perfect women" if adding perfect members to the harem.
So.
A woman might be "closer to perfection", but that's not the same as "more perfect".
For my harem I want Sophie Ellis Bextor.
hmm.
output as follows then. There are no such thing as more perfect, only perfect! or the lack thereof.
@Elmo.
Nice of you to help Grover here, he's such a mess!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o04Kqp6GyWM
My pet peeve: pedants who think that everything is literal. For example:
- pedants (Robin?) who think there's something wrong with "more perfect".
- pedants who think that "that's what I'm talking about" is literal rather than a fixed expression.
- pedants (Robin?) who think there's something wrong with "more perfect".
- pedants who think that "that's what I'm talking about" is literal rather than a fixed expression.
No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique".
Now.
Vem fan ar Robin?
Onto, the "more complete" issue.
So, if you had something that was complete at the time, but you found more things to add to it? The new version would also be complete, but since it would have more stuff in it you would call that...more complete?!?!
Now.
Vem fan ar Robin?
Onto, the "more complete" issue.
So, if you had something that was complete at the time, but you found more things to add to it? The new version would also be complete, but since it would have more stuff in it you would call that...more complete?!?!
Well, I don't like to see 's when it isn't needed. It looks weird and more like Dutch than English.
She has five baby's. (Probably some of you will scream when you see that.)
She has five baby's. (Probably some of you will scream when you see that.)
So, The Observer, you think that the Constitution was in error when it spoke of a "more perfect" union?
<<No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique". >>
This sentence is grammatically incorrect.
<<Example. So. >>
This is a sloppy and very imperfect way of writing.
<<However, on may have>>
There is a spelling mistake in this sentence. If you intended to write "on", then it makes no sense.
<<hmm. >>
Hmm.
<<output as follows then. >>
You're missing a capital letter. Also it is very sloppy to leave out "the".
<<There are no such thing as more perfect>>
This is a heinous grammatical blunder.
<<No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique". >>
This is grammatically incorrect.
In other words, The Observer, my pet peeve is non-native speakers who pretend like their opinion matters. Or if you're not a non-native, then my pet peeve is you.
This sentence is grammatically incorrect.
<<Example. So. >>
This is a sloppy and very imperfect way of writing.
<<However, on may have>>
There is a spelling mistake in this sentence. If you intended to write "on", then it makes no sense.
<<hmm. >>
Hmm.
<<output as follows then. >>
You're missing a capital letter. Also it is very sloppy to leave out "the".
<<There are no such thing as more perfect>>
This is a heinous grammatical blunder.
<<No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique". >>
This is grammatically incorrect.
In other words, The Observer, my pet peeve is non-native speakers who pretend like their opinion matters. Or if you're not a non-native, then my pet peeve is you.
<So, The Observer, you think that the Constitution was in error when it spoke of a "more perfect" union? >
I would not call "more perfect" an error, since it can be understood as "closer to perfection".
However, there is no reason why the Constitution should not contain errors. It is only a document.
I would not call "more perfect" an error, since it can be understood as "closer to perfection".
However, there is no reason why the Constitution should not contain errors. It is only a document.
<<However, one may have>>
<<There is no such thing as "more perfect">>
<<The output is as follows then.>>
(The) included (is) added, and capital letter in (output) scrapped.
@Pedant.
I'm not sure I corrected all the errors. Perhaps you could be kind enough to help me out?
(:
<In other words, The Observer, my pet peeve is non-native speakers who pretend like their opinion matters. Or if you're not a non-native, then my pet peeve is you.>
I'm bilingual by birth. A disadvantage at times, especially so when tired.
<<There is no such thing as "more perfect">>
<<The output is as follows then.>>
(The) included (is) added, and capital letter in (output) scrapped.
@Pedant.
I'm not sure I corrected all the errors. Perhaps you could be kind enough to help me out?
(:
<In other words, The Observer, my pet peeve is non-native speakers who pretend like their opinion matters. Or if you're not a non-native, then my pet peeve is you.>
I'm bilingual by birth. A disadvantage at times, especially so when tired.
<<No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique". >>
No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there is something as "more unique"
There you go.
No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there is something as "more unique"
There you go.
When everything/everyone (or almost everything) is perfect, then you need "more perfect".
<< No such thing as "more perfect" anymore then there be something as "more unique". >>
Nadia Elena Comaneci is the example which makes this statement wrong.
From Wikipedia - Nadia Elena Comăneci is a Romanian gymnast, winner of three Olympic gold medals at the 1976 Summer Olympics, and the first gymnast to be awarded a perfect score of 10 in an Olympic gymnastic event. She is also the winner of two gold medals at the 1980 Summer Olympics.
For example - To be more perfect, another person could do what she did but perform a triple flip where she executed a double flip. The triple flip would be to the same standard as the double flip.
Nadia Elena Comaneci is the example which makes this statement wrong.
From Wikipedia - Nadia Elena Comăneci is a Romanian gymnast, winner of three Olympic gold medals at the 1976 Summer Olympics, and the first gymnast to be awarded a perfect score of 10 in an Olympic gymnastic event. She is also the winner of two gold medals at the 1980 Summer Olympics.
For example - To be more perfect, another person could do what she did but perform a triple flip where she executed a double flip. The triple flip would be to the same standard as the double flip.
<< <<There are no such thing as more perfect>>
This is a heinous grammatical blunder. >>
Sounds somewhat over the top.
I would have said: "This is a grammatical error".
This is a heinous grammatical blunder. >>
Sounds somewhat over the top.
I would have said: "This is a grammatical error".
People who go on about their peeves when they can't even spell "peeve".
I mean, we all make a typo now and then and I'm a prime example of someone who is forever hitting send and then going, "Oh, shoot, look at that", but really ... that was a particularly bad place to make one.
I mean, we all make a typo now and then and I'm a prime example of someone who is forever hitting send and then going, "Oh, shoot, look at that", but really ... that was a particularly bad place to make one.