Источник грамматики

Праздновать роман 20th столетия, Ulysses, и свой автор, Джеймс Джойс, отпразднован каждое 16-ое июня на вызвано «Bloomsday.»

Часть «цветеня» приходит от центрального характера внутри Ulysses, которое было названо цветенем Leopold, и дата от дня в котором повествование романа 24-часовое осуществляет, 16-ое июня 1904.

Bloomsday празднует широко в Dublin, устанавливать романа, и поистине в пятнах вокруг мира wherever будут вентиляторы Джойс и его сочинительств.

Festivities Dublin вклюают crawls издания, которые клонат склонить меня к праздновать случай в том ирландском городе.

Возможно я могу сделать его там в 2011.

Turn out наши соседи к северу имейте довольно чувство юмора a (саркастическое) о их.

Вы должны прочитать статью и после этого по крайней мере первые 10 комментариев для того чтобы получить поистине утеху из этого опыта чтения (прочитанного Rhino специально):

BEWARE ГОРЯЧИЕ СОСИСКИ УБИЙЦЫ

Сохранит нас?

Сохранит опубликовывать книги?

Сохранит газеты?

Что середин «за исключением»?

Если за исключением вами середина, «, то будет держать вещи справедливо по мере того как они?» после этого ответ ничего будет. Оно сверх.

Если за исключением вами середина, «будет держать работы pressmen и ванты поставки и авиаотряды бухгалтеров и создателей коробки и transshippers и покупателей bookstore и младших редакторов и мальчиков кофеего,» после этого ответ все еще ничего будут. Не разжигать, не iPad, не акт конгресса.

Нам нужно получить за этой идеей сбережения, потому что статус-кво выходит здание, и быстро. Как раз в печати of course, но в вашей индустрии слишком.

If you want to know who will save the joy of reading something funny, or the leverage of acting on fresh news or the importance of allowing yourself to be changed by something in a book, then don't worry. It doesn't need saving. In fact, this is the moment when we can figure out how to increase those benefits by a factor of ten, precisely because we don't have to spend a lot of resources on the saving part.

Every revolution destroys the average middle first and most savagely.

Stolen shamelessly without permission from Seth Godin's Blog. Read this and mull it over many times and prepare for the future.

Actually, I don't have ten, but it's a nice number to project authority on a subject matter, which is why using lists and touting them in a blog post's title helps make the thing go viral. I guess people cannot digest paragraphs, or good ol' expository writing or–heaven help us!–essays anymore. They need lists, so they can have etch little compartments in their tiny little brains and also have food for fodder when trying to sound authoritative on a subject: "Yeah, there are three good reasons why…blah, blah, blah."

So my main (numbers one through ten) reason for generally shunning lists is this–you can't develop a logical argument or a good piece of exposition by hanging it all on lists. Oh, sure, you can squeeze in a list in lots of written pieces, but I'd say for the most part lists are mere shameless expositions of laziness (when it comes to writing) and hasty ploys to go viral for an audience that disdains having to read and be led to a logical conclusion.

When I read the following article on "blogging like the British," I kept trying to figure ways I could use lists on my restaurant review site, but nothing seemed to really fit the challenge. What am supposed to write, something that goes "the ten reasons I hate Jenny's Slop House are…"?

Anyway, the article has lots of good advice in it, but I would not agree that you have to spell out numbers through 100 (read: one hundred). I start using digits at 10, and that's a good enough artifice (most books might say to use digits after ten) for everyday writing.

Earlier, the Oxford Dictionary named unfriend the Word of the Year, and now the American Dialect Society has proclaimed google (lower case for Web searches) as the Word of the Decade.

Bing, the Microsoft search engine, has chimed in by announcing that Twitter was the most popular word of 2009.

What does all this mean? That we spend too much time on the Net, and we should remind ourselves to get a life in 2010.

Google that, will ya?

I guess it’s best to start with the positive (no plural). At least disgraced baseball slugger Mark McGwire had the courage to own up to his steroid abuse–partially anyway.

In admitting yesterday that he had used steroids (whose names he conveniently couldn’t remember), McGwire fell back on what has now become the number-one cop-out defense of their use. He used them for medicinal purposes.

He was okay up until that point, had he just gone on and said he didn’t realize he’d get hooked when he saw what they did for his performance on the field. Instead, during an hourlong interview with Bob Costas, he repeatedly denied that using steroids gave him any performance boost. He instead thanked "The Man Up Above" for his power to whack 70 home runs at an age (34) when most baseball players are fading fast.

Those who have been exposed as steroid users have now fallen on three standard defenses: complete and utter denial (Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds), "I didn’t know I was taking them because they were in a vitamin a teammate gave me" (Rafael Palmiero), and medicinal use (McGwire, Andy Pettitte).

Another approach is MLB-sanctioned and team-complicit silence (Manny Ramirez), but one should expect nothing less from a sleazeball organization like the L.A. Dodgers.

Anyway, call McGwire’s defense "The Super Acetaminophine Explanation": Using steroids in "low doses" healed my body without giving me any additional strength or endurance, so it was all okay.

Then if it were all okay, why the hell did you break down and cry on TV and make the rounds of apologizing to everyone, including the Roger Maris family? Remember, Mark, they were just pain killers and body healers, not performance enhancers. No need to apologize for that, now is there?

College and universities have long required applicants to write essays to evaluate their ability to reason and use the English language effectively.

However, what on earth would answers to any of these questions ever reveal on the reasoning side:

How do you feel about Wednesday? (University of Chicago, 2002)

Are we alone? (Tufts, 2009)

Make a bold prediction about something in the year 2010 that no one else has made a bold prediction about. (University of Virginia, 1999)

More silly essay topics here.

First we had Roger Clemens and his use of misremembers, and now the New Oxford American Dictionary has chosen unfriend as its Word of the Year.

The dictionary defines unfriend this way:

"To remove someone as a ‘friend’ on a social networking site such as Facebook."

What next, "I unlove you and want a divorce"?

As I’ve noted before, I’m sure the Democrats would love to own the major media to censor any opposing viewpoints. However, they don’t really need to buy any of the major media because the folks running them already censor, pummel and/or exclude any opinion other than the left wing’s (Fox being the only major media exception).

That didn’t stop the Washington Post from pleading for a federal bailout. They even cited Barack Obama, saying he used to teach Constitutional Law, to make it clear that there would be no legal problems in the feds bailing out the media. I got a huge laugh out of that one, however, since Obama doesn’t even regard the Constitution as relevant. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he produce his (Kenyan) birth certificate? (I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to rule his health care mandates unconstitutional.)

Anyway, the Post folks make a fool of themselves with their editorial and, worse, make their whole profession tawdry by begging for a handout. (I, by the way, am a trained journalist and former executive editor of two newspapers, and I say, "Get on with your life and find a new business model if you want to stay in journalism" to all those who want taxpayers to fund their publications.)