http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAtpPNKnybA

ff7 spoilers

haha this way the white materia bouncing around kind of reminds me of the bumpers they show before movies (not the trailers, the FEATURE PRESENTATION bits)

(from this post: http://the303.tumblr.com/post/31258835976/sanic )

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto hooooly shiiiiit!! hoooly shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt!!!! hundley, catamites, EVERYONE read this!!

on the other hand, if you got too enthuastic, excited and inspired, you can always read this and come down back to your boring early-adolescent world-moaning http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/apple-says-new-iphone-5-feature-gives-life-meaning.html it's a brilliant marketting/milking idea anyways

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto hooooly shiiiiit!! hoooly shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt!!!! hundley, catamites, EVERYONE read this!!

To Everett, the Pirahã’s unswerving dedication to empirical reality—he called it the “immediacy-of-experience principle”—explained their resistance to Christianity, since the Pirahã had always reacted to stories about Christ by asking, “Have you met this man?” Told that Christ died two thousand years ago, the Pirahã would react much as they did to my using bug repellent.


lol fuck yeah

Pirahã (pronounced pee-da-HAN)

oh. well that was rather unexpected

I read this article a long time ago and I'd just like to say that the notion of him having undermined the core tenet of linguistics was just a fraudulent claim probably designed to draw attention to his work. If you want people to read you in linguistics, just make some outrageous claim of having defeated Chomsky and you're good to go.

haven't read into linguistics and don't know a shit about them naturally and what's going on so far but that's pr hefty/bad if there was a systematic refusal or disinterest on languages in minor towns or whatever it was said in the article. you also have a lot of notions/assumptions there in your post considering you have zero references to your conclusions. i don't particulary care about to have an argument about this but you're doing some seemingly/apparently slippery slopin' there!

well i recently read that "the most influential public intellectual in political matters is Noam Chomsky, who knows practically nothing" *sweats and spits profusely*

my source is: read the linguistics papers sometime

are there any particular linguistics papers that you would recommend

i think i meant more akin to what i'm concerned of in what i'm commenting next (ahaha what a sentence, i hope it makes sense)

noooooooooooooo ramci don't do this to me don't give me the "give me all you sources otherwise your argument is NULL AND VOID" crap please

i'm not using that rhetoric, im just telling you what i see! i don't see your conclusions here. you don't have any sort of argument in there other than it's chomsky, his theory rules (i know who he is and his influence and that he's good) and you just pick from there....- actually i'll change that. i was going to write more but i think what I need to stress is that you're doing this the easy way, by making fun of me than explain where you are coming from - i'm not insinuating or expecting as much as you are here right now, hear.

now, the pirada people seem legit all right and neither of us have sure information on whether the guy's story really is what it is - that he became increasingly uncomfortable with the theory or with Chomsky's attitude to the pirada people or if it has ulterior motives. to do this you would have to view the article and the guy's comments in a attention-seeking story - like perception and to do this, you'd have to stretch somewhat and do some work on it (and discard most of the guy's story too). not impossible but definitely not so plausible in the fashion as you seemingly did in what i view is not enough information (to discard the entire story in one short post).

i hope this makes sense, it's late at night and im hella tired but i really hope this won't turn into a heated argument/defenses. like i said, i don't see what constitutes your conclusions here.

noooooooooooooo ramci don't do this to me don't give me the "give me all you sources otherwise your argument is NULL AND VOID" crap please

I read this article a long time ago and I'd just like to say that the notion of him having undermined the core tenet of linguistics was just a fraudulent claim probably designed to draw attention to his work. If you want people to read you in linguistics, just make some outrageous claim of having defeated Chomsky and you're good to go.

is this an argument? what are you arguing, here? "no, he's actually wrong, because." I can't even tell from this if you're talking about this particular guy or if it's just a blanket defence of Chomsky's theories. Ramci didn't ask for "all your sources", he asked for any kind of reason why you would say this, because you didn't give anything like that in your post. Do you really think it's insanely presumptuous to request any kind of explanation at all for a vague non-rebuttal like this.

helo :o)

helo :o)

helo :o)