Why dickshunarys are embarassing themselves

If you wiki "sherbert" it will redirect you to sherbet, some fizzy powder...then there's a link to sherbet (U.S.). This is all very confusing. It looks like part of the confusion might be that this "fizzy powder" in the UK is pronounced Sherbet, or Sherbert in australian or new zealand english. Our closest comparison to these sherbe(r)ts would be a mix between pixy stix and pop rocks.

Under "Sherbet (U.S.)," it explains that sherbet is a frozen dessert made from iced fruit juice or puree. Sherbets usually have more ingredients, like milk, while sorbets (sor-BAY) are usually not milky.


"Sherbet is known as sherbert in the more cultured areas of the country (New York)" -wikipedia

"Also sherbert Australian, An alcoholic beverage, especially beer." -American Heritage Dictionary


For this reason I think sherbet is more correct. The quote above about "sherbert" being from cultured areas...I think is bunk. Usually when you say someone is more "cultured" it means they're more classy or prissy. I wonder if what they mean or should have said in that quote is that there is more of a mix of cultures, so no one knows what the heck they're talking about, or maybe know one knows how the heck to talk.

When you search on dictionary.com for sherbert, it redirects you to sherbet, where the entry says "also sherbert."
Tons of people, if not a majority, say sherbert, so it's become "correct." I wouldn't really have cared about anyone calling it sherbert, it's just that a friend of mine was trying to say that "sorbet" wasn't a word...

Word History: Although the word sherbet has been in the English language for several centuries (it was first recorded in 1603), it has not always referred to what one normally thinks of as sherbet. Sherbet came into English from Ottoman Turkish sherbet or Persian sharbat, both going back to Arabic arba, “drink.” The Turkish and Persian words referred to a beverage of sweetened, diluted fruit juice that was popular in the Middle East and imitated in Europe. In Europe sherbet eventually came to refer to a carbonated drink. Because the original Middle Eastern drink contained fruit and was often cooled with snow, sherbet was applied to a frozen dessert (first recorded in 1891). It is distinguished slightly from sorbet, which can also mean “a fruit-flavored ice served between courses of a meal.” Sorbet (first recorded in English in 1585) goes back through French (sorbet) and then Italian (sorbetto) to the same Turkish sherbet that gave us sherbet.


Here's my summary.....Please let me know if you agree or not...
I don't mind when words are pronounced differently even though technically it may be incorrect.
If I come across one of these words, I will use my best judgment, based on what I think might be good references (for example, the way the history of the word "sherbet" never once puts an "R" in front of the final "T." That's just how I decide how I will say it. I probably do this so that people don't correct me...and if they do correct me because they say it the way that I decided against, then I can tell them my reasoning.
Some examples of words I choose to pronounce the way I do, after once pronouncing differently:
I used to say sherbert, now sherbet
I used to say KYU-pon, now KU-pon
I used to say Feb-you-ary, now Feb-ru-ary (this was partly in defense of my dad, who mispronounces a few words. Well this one is correct, and it’s just not fair to be corrected for something that you do more correct than anyone else.)
I never said "AMbercrombie and FiNch" and I still don't because that’s not even close.

I don't care if other people say these differently (except for ambercrombie), but I will bring it up if I think it's interesting, or if someone starts to correct me about something I’m pretty confident that I’m right about. I hope I don't just correct people out of the blue, because that would annoy me. Everybody says something(s) wrong, and once you know them good enough (like your own self), you don't even notice, it's just part of their personality. Someone, for example, might notice that my last sentence was probably a run-on--something about clauses and the lack of a semicolon.
And here's my REAL summary:
What pisses me off, I mean WAY off (just kidding), is that you can't read in the dictionary about what things are supposed to be. So all we see is that it's "sherbet, OR sherbert" or "ku-pon OR kyu-pon." Why can't someone keep track of the way it originally was. I know that languages evolve, but pleeeeease, the fact that everyone pronounces February "FEB YOU AIRY" is no reason to say that February can be pronounced either way! It's fine to say something wrong, but if it is supposed to be pronounced KU-pon or KYU-pon, then leave it that way in the dictionary, and don't modify it because people start saying it wrong.
I remember when they were adding "ain't" and other slang words to the dictionary. Watch, someday they'll take out the slang and we'll all be allowed to say isn't or aren't or ain't whenever the heck we want. And when we're 80 and angry and complaining about it, young people will call us cloze-meindid. "We're not close-minded," we'll croak, "we just want to be able to read and understand what is supposedly english."

Anyways or anyway....I always say anyways, but does that make sense? Would you say, "Any ways you look at it" or "In any cases"
The dictionary just says "nonstandard" or maybe something about the U.K. pronunciation...or something to do with "anywise"
Well what if I want the dictionary to just tell me blatantly which is correct. I would like to know if it is a mispronunciation, or if it comes from "anywise," etc.
I shouldn't have to research to find out.
It's always common, easy, short words that have this problem. There aren't 3 different spellings of the scientific name for mosquito (in full: Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Culicomorpha Culicidae) just because some people started pronouncing it differently.
They should have two books, the dictionary, which tells you how it's supposed to be,
and the Understanding-English dictionary, which helps you understand what people mean.
Or maybe just make an appendix.

Here’s something else I’m dying to know. Who speaks more correct English, the English or the Americans (and I’m talking about the most standard, TV American you can find, not the crazies from Bastin or New Yaak or Saaayin Aentooonio). I just started realizing that this is a tough one, because you can’t say, “No, you’re not saying ‘bike’ correctly. It rhymes with ‘like.’” If either an American or English person looks in the dictionary and reads through the vowels with funny symbols, that is the correct way and there’s probably no way to correct either person. Still, I’m pretty sure British people speak with more quirks. Say “proper” like a Brit. If you said it like they do, there’s no “r.” How about something as simple as “go”—I’m curious if the real technical pronunciation for a British long O sound is “ao” rather than just “o.”

I guess I’ll talk more about British people in my next post.

Thanks George

Thanks, George Bush, for lowering gas prices. You've really outdone yourself this time!
Although, my shoes are getting old and the insides are way past beginning to fall apart. Are you sure that the you're doing the most you can to develop new shoe programs for Americans?

And thank you for the sunny day! I doubt Clinton-Gore could have given us a September 25th like this!

The fourth dimension

chris already started arguing against the idea of time as the 4th dimension (4thD) in response to my last post. The 4thD is very hard to argue/think about since the 4th D is not like the first 3Ds. You can't see it and affect it, like chris said. If humans are ever sure of what the 4thD is, then I think scientists should be able to explain it in away that you and I little people can really believe. That's my rationalization for trying to argue against it even though real scientists would probably scoff and spit upon me. But hey, they're still theorizing, right? Until it's agreed upon as a fact, it's a theory, and so I'm allowed to theorize. And I'm definitely allowed to explain why I doubt their theory.

Ok, well here's one thing I hate: looking at the 4th dimension geometrically. Supposedly, one dimension up from the cube is the tesseract. I think the easiest way to rationalize the tesseract is by using the point, line, square, cube...method that I outlined the dimensions with yesterday. A geometry reminder: each corner of a square, or any shape that has a corner, is called a vertex (vertices plural). So just imagine geometric shapes as being made up of points/vertices and lines that connect them. A line goes on to infinity in either direction, a line segment is discrete, meaning it has a definite start and finish (2 vertices, and one line that connects them). If I just say line here, I probably mean line segment.
0D: point: 1 vertex, has 0 lines that connect to 0 other vertices
1D: line: 2 vertices, each vertex has 1 line that connects to 1 other vertex
2D: square: 4 vertices, each vertex has 2 lines that connect to 2 other vertices
3D: cube: 8 vertices, each vertex has 3 lines that connect to 3 other vertices
4D: tesseract: 16 vertices, each vertex has 4 lines that connect to 4 other vertices

Are you serious? They apparently are. Am I pissed off? I am.
Ok...a mathemetician would probably rip me apart about how this 4th dimension isn't technically visible, but they draw it like it's visible. The shape that most makes sense to me is like this...
Imagine a cube, now imagine it has a clone that is in the exact same position as the first. One of these cubes grow, so now you have a cube inside of a bigger cube. Now just connect each of the corners of the inner cube to the nearest corner of the larger, outer cube. So now, there are 2 cubes, which each have 8 vertices each (16 total). And each vertex has 3 lines that attach it to its original cube, and 1 new line that attaches it to 1 vertex on the other cube.
THIS IS A 3 DIMENSIONAL OBJECT, you can't just add more sides and vertices and say that now this shape is 4D! Say you have a sphere, this is a 3D object, and however you change it or try to make it more complex, everything that you can still see is still just as 3D as a tree or a cloud.

Alright, that's enough about geometry, let's talk theory.
Time:
We move forward through time. We don't know if we can go backwards in time, although supposedly if you go faster than the speed of light, you might be able to go back in time, or at least view the past. You could also see the past if you can control the bending of light, but this is all very vague and unstudied by me and should just be a future topic.
Here is a reason why time being the 4thD might make sense. Imagine you are the square (read the last blog about Flatland if you don't remember) living in a 2D world. Your 2D plane (what you envision is the universe!) could be moving through 3D space. You have no feeling of experiencing 3Ds, except that you get clues, like a 3D object passing through your plane and briefly looking like a 2D object. (Here's a brief glimpse into future blogs...like a multidimensional God dipping his finger into our 3D world and briefly looking like a 3D Jesus...HHUUUUUUUUHHH???). So you, a 2D square, are living your normal life, but passing through 3D space...which you have no control over. This is similar to being a 3D human, living in 3D space, but passing through time...which you have no control over.

But I still don't believe it...we need to talk more about it. What do you think?

Flatland and Time as the "4th Dimension"

On christianheresy.blogspot.com I started discussing the book Flatland, but didn't want to distract from Jason's theme. So I've decided to make my blog be a place where you can discuss things that aren't necessarily so serious. Here's the rule though. I'm not writing to be heard. I'm writing because I get bored, but it is fun to know that it's not just a diary. So the rule is that if you read it, you HAVE to leave a comment, even just to say you read it. Otherwise I'm just going to start thinking these things to myself rather than type.

Flatland overview:
A 2-dimensional square lives in a 2D world, basically a plane. He sees a circle which actually turns out to be a 3D sphere intersecting with the plane. The square has no idea what the directions "up" and "down" are, so the sphere "disappears" back into space. The sphere begins to nudge the square out of his 2D plane, which feels weird for the square, since this pressure is coming from inside of him, in a direction he can't comprehend. The square is eventually in 3D space...
The details you can read for yourself.

The point:
Some people say time is the 4th dimension, because the dimensions progress like this:
0.) 0 dimensions - a point (now this story is for demonstration, so don't get all technical, it doesn't matter how something in 0 dimensions can have an eye, or that technically you can't "see" a point, it's more of a parable)
1.) 1 dimension - a line (here's something interesting, you couldn't technically see a line either...)
2.) 2 dimensions - a square or some other shape you could draw on paper
3.) 3 dimensions - a cube, sphere, etc.

4.) 4 dimensions - a 3D object travelling through time. The argument is that everything gets more and more complex...imagine a point...becoming a line....the line sliding/stretching perpendicularly to become a square...the square sliding/stretching perpendicularly (what I mean by perpendicularly is that the square is sitting on the table, and then it just starts rising straight up off the table) to become a cube....

and...a cube constantly having a new position (or the same, it doesn't matter) as it travels through time. Another way to look at it is this way: Imagine a 3D image, look out your window or something, now that image has the 3 dimensions that you see, left/right, forward/backward, up/down, but an infinite number of times every second it is updating/changing as it travels through time. Just like there are an infinite number of positions that a point could take along a line that may be only 1 inch long, there are an infinite number of 3D pictures that take place in one second. So time is the 4th dimension.

Until it's proven, I think it's a good suggestion, but I think it's wrong....

to be continued...

Oh boy, this is a doozy

The pope makes some statement about Islam and violence. He apparently was quoting or referring to something written in medieval times. Which is a GREAT example from the pope's point-of-view, because the Muslims were violent in the middle ages, not the Christians, right? uuuuuuh...?

Almost as ridiculous is this...
In response, several churches in the middle east are burned down, a nun is killed, and effigies of the pope are set on fire (on camera, which means there must have been a preceding outrage that gave the camera-people time to get there for the finale), and who knows what else. This is an angry response because the pope will not say that he was wrong or sorry or something. If someone calls you violent, but you're not, you would get angry. And the very very worst way to show that you're angry is to prove the original statement has some truth to it.

I'm pretty confused. Were the people who reacted in violence (which makes no sense) actually just proud of the statement? And separately, other peaceful people just protested? That would make at least some sense.

If this wasn't such a sensitive subject, it could be a comic or something.
"You're violent"
"I am not!"...PPRFFF!... (that was the *onomatopoeia for a punch)
"ouch!"
END

*A word that sounds like the thing it describes, like "bang" or "clang"
I don't think PPRFFF really qualifies since it's not a real word.

There are an amazing number of people in the world.

This number borders on infinity. (FYI: Every increasing number borders on infinity. Although there is an end to human population in sight--if nothing drastic and no event-seemingly-subtle-but-having-severe-eventual-consequences happens to interrupt the future, then presumably the burning out of the sun, it is not fair to limit the growth of numbers. After all, we can calculate how quickly HIV spreads throughout the body, and while unfortunately, most people die from a resulting sickness, no one argues that if left undisturbed by medicines or death, HIV would continue to infect cells until there was no where left to go. Infinity is infinity, and it is no fair to the number 6 billion to say, "Six Billion, excuse me, but you are further from infinity than you THINK! Yes-sir-eee! I, Twelve Billion am twice as far as you!" We use numbers, but numbers are numbers and they know where they stand (except, oddly, for Twelve Billion). Six Billion is not embarrased by Twelve Billion's teasing, but he is also not proud of his own standing in regards to infinity. The crux is this: Infinity minus any number is infinity. Six Billion knows that Twelve Billion is no closer to infinity, they both have infinity to go. That is why I don't believe in enlightenment for mortals. And what I beieve in even LESS, no, what I despise, is that anyone should consider himself closer to enlightenment than anyone else.

Alright, ENOUGH. You get my point. But I have TWO, so stay tuned in!
What I just did is NOT FAIR, that is, if my intent was to convince the average person.
FIRST POINT:
Someone who does not care for math would read that and get bored or what they might think is "confused." Or maybe they'd get annoyed. I wrote that, and sometimes write things like that, as a joke, because I like books that are witty, like Hitchhikers or Flatland, and involve math. The truth (and the reason I want to make it clear to people that I am at heart trying to be funny and not pompous) is that this kind of thing really could come off as pompous. When you have knowledge, you have power, and when you have knowledge of philosophy, math, science, etc. you happen to be someone with an analytical mind and sometimes think you are smart. While we are arguing about philosophy and designing our war machines, there are people with other kind of knowledge. Maybe our side-interests of "forward-thinking" will change the future. But I want to consider the other people with power: nurses, good parents or other caretakers, emergency workers, etc. These are people who have just as much knowledge and power, but in a different area, and in an area possibly crucial to people-like-us's survival. I'd really hate to be bleeding to death and have several "forward-thinkers" sitting around contemplating where my soul was headed.
I appreciate JZ's new blog christianheresy.blogspot.com because although Jason loves to think lofty thoughts, he writes so that everyone can understand. He even includes some definitions, not to prove that his vocab is bigger than the lay-person's, but because he really thought that word could help get the point across. He's saying, "Here, Everyman, you're the same as me."

The reason my infinity argument is not fair is that it is over many readers' heads (not in intelligence, just in subject matter), but it is used to argue a point that everyone should be able to respond to ("enlightenment"). It may or may not sound convincing, but the bad thing about it is that it's so specific to a certain subject matter, in this case, math, that probably a good amount of people wouldn't know enough about it to grasp what's going on, so they can't really respond or participate in the discussion. The truth is I just made it up as I was typing, and then I made it sound technical, putting some truths in there, so that it would sound somewhat credible. And the grand finale, the woeful deed: I used it to get my "point" across. Now if someone doesn't know math, they can't argue with it, all they can say is, "It doesn't make sense." And then me, having been forced to understand math, can use that to my advantage and say, "Well it's true, you just don't understand. You must be stupid." And here comes the saddest part of this un/non-literal, unspoken argument...The non-math person has some possible responses. And they are these:
"I must be stupid since I don't understand, I don't belong here."
"I don't understand, but I know it doesn't make sense, so I'm frustrated, I don't belong here, and I am not going to participate."
Maybe there are more choices, I don't like to ultra-analyze.
The point is that you just alienated that person and possibly made them feel stupid, which is not true or nice, or you just annoyed them and now you and they will never be able to grow together or learn from one another.

SECOND POINT:
I actually was able to act like I had a point at the end of my argument, saying that I don't believe in mortal enlightenment. And I could use that point to support my FIRST POINT that people shouldn't write above everyone's heads, but my logic would really start to get screwy since I just explained that my argument didn't make sense and wasn't fair. But ironically/coincidentally (i'm not sure which should be used here) that statement does apply to my FIRST POINT. No one should act more enlightened, because we all have infinity more to learn.
To summarize:
Can we please speak/write so that everyone can understand? I mean, if you know the audience is potentially anyone? I had a couple philosophy classes, and it really made me feel smart to know and understand St. Augustine and Euripides, and blablablatcetera. I felt like now I could hold my ground against friends who argued philosophy, but looking back, I'm just annoyed with myself and embarrassed (not about what I said, but just how smart I assumed I was). I mean, when I hear people talking/writing all deep and confusing, I don't get mad or annoyed. I just think there are easier ways to say things so that everyone can participate. Really, you know everything that those old philosophers said (OK, maybe not everything), mostly they teach you to THINK-which is good. You don't necessarily have to make everything as hard to understand as they did (some people equate hard-to-understand with cleverness). It's tedious when you have to re-read someone's argument 3 times so that you know exactly what they're saying, and THEN make a counterargument.

Let's say what we mean.
One more thing. Sometimes out of fear of not being open-minded enough, I'll make vague arguments or preface statements with stuff like "in my opinion" or "i believe" so that I don't offend people. I do this all the time. I'm not going to use, "I think" or "I believe," quite as much as I do now. I'm just going to state what I currently believe, and that's obviously my opinion since I said it and not you! Of course I'm not forcing you to believe it, and I'm not saying "your opinion is impossible because mine is different." If anyone participates in philosophical discussions or claims to be a "forward-thinker" anyway, then why should I worry that they'll be offended? So I've made up my mind to say what I think! And if I change my mind I'll start saying something else! WHO'S WITH ME?!!!! GARRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!