oxybuttinout

You might also wish to fill out your profile information to further introduce yourself to those who click on your name. Good writing. Take care. Vern

Norm d'Plume wrote:

Hmm. I used to write technical manuals...

Now we know who to blame, lol. Take care. Vern

j p lundstrom wrote:

I don't consider myself a dummy (no matter what they say) but I recognize my needs. After all, I'm the one who didn't know how to reverse the quotation marks when needed. I always go for the manual as soon as I get an update, a new computer, or any new gadget. And I always have the same experience: within minutes I'm asleep.

I thought this would end after a few years, when lots of people became knowledgeable, but so far, no such luck. The condition remains: Technical writers don't know how to write!

If it's in print, sentences are convoluted, filled with jargon we "dummies" don't understand. Who can blame us for not understanding a foreign language?

If it's a video, the presenter wastes time with useless allusions and analogies, then zips over new procedures so fast they don't register. Or else, the action is obscured by the presenters hands or body or the camera angle isn't right. Forgive me, but I can only watch a thing so many times!

So what if I don't have a very long attention span, or my patience runs out, or I'm distracted by real life? I can't be the only human being with these problems. That doesn't make me a dummy! I have a healthy IQ, I can communicate with others, and I usually can make sense of what I'm told.

IT'S NOT US; IT'S THEM!

JP

I wasn't referring to the technical manuals (everything you mention about them is true), rather the real book titled "Word For Dummies" and I was literally a computer dummy, having virtually never used one before, but the book was easy to understand and follow directions even for me. If you haven't tried it, perhaps if would help; if you actually have tried it rather than the standard manuals and still found it confusing, then thanks for letting me know I'm a whiz kid and didn't know it, lol. Take care. Vern

No oxy needed

Oxymoron

Hello, AT, you might try Word For Dummies (like I was). I bought the2007 version years ago and it shows all kinds of things you can do. I assume they have updated versions in paper or digital for the newer models. Well worth the cost to prevent wasting time on seemingly minor things as what you stated. Take care. Vern

America

I would have got all them not wrong if I wrote it after now. Took care. Vern

760

(46 replies, posted in HodgePodge)

GPyrenees wrote:

So I come on to the site and...

No word from Hamler
No word from Vern
Nothing decent to read

I'm like --- wtf??

Well, Vern is still around - been playing nurse maid mostly - not sure about John. I've been waiting on you to post your finished novel so I can give you a bad ass review. Only the lonely ... know the way I feel tonight, whoa, whoa. Take care. Vern

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjq4wYuwgxs

Me too

non-virgin

Present-lax

Exactly

How many (the number of people who won't get the Korean BBQ)

poop poop (what the dog does before or after barking to go out)

"What the hell were you thinking," I knew some fool would ask when told I slid from my booth into the one occupied by this lecherous leprechaun of a man simply because he gestured that I do so; and of course my answer would reveal the true disgust I had for him, my husband.

Frankly my dear, since you drank it all, I'll accept your offer to pay and then we shall see each other nevermore.

769

(4 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Ahh so, Grasshopper, sounds like fun, but I don't see any "phrases" only "words" which must be incorporated. Alas, I'll manage to turn them into phrases somehow as I suspect will most others. I'm already racking my brain to meet the challenge. Take care. Vern

770

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.

A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.

GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!

Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!

"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY." 

That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.

You call that an argument/rebuttal? Geez. The blue stuff doesn't even make sense within any context of this discussion or possibly otherwise. And a country by definition has borders even if The Donald doesn't/can't see them.

This is exactly why Trump's opposition within any Party is always wrong. You're like drug addicts or psychopaths: whatever it is, deny, deny, deny. There are borders only if the administrative government forbids passage of every unauthorized person, so a statement that "The Donald doesn't see them" is some delusional allegation of an irrelevant charge.

vern wrote:

Building a wall around a country which serves no useful purpose is more of a prison than a natural border.

Whether by Rome or by China, walls worked for the purpose of establishing and maintaining borders so long as the concept that no unauthorized person may enter. Walls, and by "walls" it is meant any personal, physical, or electronic prevention, can only work if the concept of unauthorized person remains corresponding to reality, and only Trump as Presidential candidate is smart and sober enough to know that. The concept of open borders, that effectively there is or ought to be no unauthorized person to enter and reside in a sovereign nation, is to destroy that sovereign nation. International socialism either of the coercive kind (communism, anarcho-libertarianism) or the insidious kind (George Soros' Open Society and other sorts of collectivist anarchism), Islamic expansionist jihadism, in establishing caliphates regardless of nationality, or merely utilitarian expansion of a slave class has a vested interest in diminishing or destroying U.S. national sovereignty. And then there are the drug addicts, psychopaths, and the stupid like you who are delusional.

His limited wall will not secure the border. The "walls" of China, etc. were designed to stop armies, not individuals. If you think any wall which Trump could or would build can stop the determined individuals from entering, then you are the "delusional" one. Take care. Vern

771

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

You can sit there in your underwear and robe making any number of claims which are completely false.




He isn't admitting to anything. He sounds to me like an old middle-aged man fabricating fish stories to impress a young man who is enjoying the fable as much as if it were the truth. That is locker room talk, at best exaggeration of what might have happened or fantasy of what might happen.

Right! How could I be so blind. Trump is the second coming and his loyal subjects perceive his perfectness and worship at his perfect feet. He can do no wrong. May he lift you up in his righteous arms and bestow all his glory upon you. Take care. Vern

It's not that Trump has always been right; it's that his political opposition of any Party has always been wrong.

A couple neglects to latch the bedroom door before engaging in vertical exercise, and their child walks in and sees everything.

GOP/DEM/LIB/GREEN/VERN : What an abuse of children! Why, we would never!

Trump: It's embarrassing, and one is regretful; mind your own effing business!

"A COUNTRY WITH NO BORDERS ISN'T A COUNTRY." 

That alone, spoken by no politician in the U.S. for generations, deserves him the Presidency.

You call that an argument/rebuttal? Geez. The blue stuff doesn't even make sense within any context of this discussion or possibly otherwise. And a country by definition has borders even if The Donald doesn't/can't see them. Building a wall around a country which serves no useful purpose is more of a prison than a natural border. For his stated purpose, the wall would have to be a sphere completely encompassing everything above, below, and around the country. Not going to happen and Trump knows that even if many of his duped supporters don't. Take care. Vern

772

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

What would your wife or 19-year-old daughter say if you 'forbade' her to interview with Trump, or Clinton, or a charismatic governor or mayor?  Isn't the freedom to make choices (and thus mistakes) central to feminism?

I'm not the one saying the female doesn't have the sense and ability to say no in the "Oval Office", you are. Therefore I would never forbid them. I trust my wife/daughter and others to be able to turn around and kick the sob in the balls or worse for inappropriate behavior, not succumb to the power play you imply they can't resist. I assure you my wife and/or daughter would/can defend themselves in such a situation. So back to the question: Do you not think those women who consented to the advances of BC had the same freedom of consent as you purport your wife/daughter/etc. might have? Your previous statement certainly implies otherwise. Please clarify. Take care. Vern

773

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

There is no research that anyone has competently accused Tump of sexual misconduct prior to this time when anyone can accuse him while shielded from suit for slander because of his candidacy..



The defense is that he has not done anything wrong.

Your claim was that in referring to these what you describe as uncorroborated stories that "...  no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election." My claim is that if you do a simple competent search, it will show clearly that there were numerous incidents prior to Trump's presidential candidacy,


You can sit there in your underwear and robe making any number of claims which are completely false.


vern wrote:

You saying Trump's defense is that he has done nothing wrong when he admits his sexual assault on tape is ludicrous.

He isn't admitting to anything. He sounds to me like an old middle-aged man fabricating fish stories to impress a young man who is enjoying the fable as much as if it were the truth. That is locker room talk, at best exaggeration of what might have happened or fantasy of what might happen.

Right! How could I be so blind. Trump is the second coming and his loyal subjects perceive his perfectness and worship at his perfect feet. He can do no wrong. May he lift you up in his righteous arms and bestow all his glory upon you. Take care. Vern

774

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

I would hope my wife/daughter/sister were self-aware enough to avoid fascination with wealth and power, and to control the messages they put out in response to it,

What good is your "hope" when you have strongly implied the female can't resist such power and thus there was really no consent from Bill's accusers/victims. You can't have it both ways unless of course you are a god like Trump living in two different fantasy worlds simultaneously. I would think your wife/daughter/sister/mother would deserve your protection to the best of your abilities from the likes of Trump above your powerless hope. Take care. Vern

775

(186 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

The allegations against Trump have to do with non-verbal sexual signalling, and that has a lot to do with Romance.

Can you name any human society that has survived on purely verbal affirmative consent?  If you cannot, then it is an experiment which may doom our society.  On those grounds, we should move slowly.

And if consent is not purely verbal, then there is room for mistake, misinterpretation, and poorly considered signalling based on the fascinations of power and prestige.

What non-verbal signaling do you suppose he sees when he hasn't even met the women in general, yet says he can do anything with/to them because of his star power? He doesn't need any verbal or non-verbal consent because he is Donald Trump and accordingly his god-like status/power makes anything he does acceptable to every female on the planet. Simple question. If you have/had a beautiful wife/daughter/very-young-mother, would you trust Trump to be completely and helplessly alone with them? Or would you respect them enough to keep them out of his grubby little paws. Support Trump's admitted behavior? Give me a break. Take care. Vern