Tuesday, March 01, 2005
In some ways I am still ignorant of technology. I was taught BASIC and PASCAL computer programming, so this HTML stuff still confuses me.
Check it out. It's going to deal with comics, and I will likely update it more often than I do this blog (though I ain't going anywhere).
Yes - I used "ain't." I think "ain't" should be a perfectly good word. Here's why:
Here are several phrases capable of contraction:
I am not - You are not - he/she/it is not - we are not - they are not.
You can contract them in this manner:
I'm not - you're not - he's/she's/it's not - we're not - they're not.
But things get tricky when you try to contract them another way:
I (something) - you aren't - he/she/it isn't - we aren't - they aren't.
What goes after I in this case? Nothing. We have no way to contract am and not in the English language. "Ain't" is the only real candidate, but grammarians have deemed it unworthy for whatever reason.
I fight those grammarians.
(I also aim for the hasty death of the word "whom." )
Of course, this blog was created to vent, and lately I have found myself less angry. Instead I just have a low level disgust aimed at the unthinking knee jerk liberalism of my fellow students.
Anyway - interesting experience:
So, we're discussing St. Augustine for whatever reason (I'm not sure, as no one in the class understands any of the scriptural allusions he makes and all they want to do is insult him for not being clever enough to see through the sham of Christianity),
I quote a verse from the Bible from memory. One that Augustine alluded to but didn't fully quote.
Someone actually said "I didn't think there were people who could quote the Bible at the drop of a hat. At least not among educated people, anyway."
Do I even have to explain the problem with that? The assumption that "educated" people don't need to be familiar with the Bible?