We have yet another mass shooting going on.

[Hauldren Collider]

Apparently somebody paid adblock to not block certain ads. There's a way around it though. You can tell it to stop.

[Sava]

how?

[C0ckney]

I think it's more likely that you're being obtuse, idiot. It was plainly obvious to me that he was referring to population, not suggesting that a city-state had a larger geographical area than a Scandinavian country. Since reg is perfectly fluent in English, you should work on your reading comprehension. I'd start with See Spot Run.

i think you'll find that the normal way to say 'smaller population' is to say 'smaller population', not 'smaller' with no noun attached.

it looks like you and reg could take the same english course. perhaps they offer a discount for couples.

[regexcellent]

If you actually thought that I believed that Singapore was largely in land area than Norway then you're the moron for not being able to come up with the OBVIOUS alternative measurement of size.

"Size" without further clarification could mean land area, it could mean land area plus internal water area (lakes and such, like Minnesota), it could mean population, it could mean ****ing volume, and you are hopefully smart enough to figure out from context that it was obviously number 3. ESPECIALLY since land area was irrelevant to the discussion, which was GDP per capita. So instead of drawing the obvious conclusions you went for the cheap shot of "oh ho ho you think Norway is smaller in land area than Singapore, how ****ing dumb are you!"

e: and I didn't even say "size" I just said "smaller than" without specifying a parameter, which again should have been very ****ing apparent based on the context of the conversation. So maybe you need an English language lesson in context clues.

[The Mad Monk]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Navy Yard shooting: AR-15, back in the news -- briefly
By Ben Brumfield, CNN
updated 8:59 AM EDT, Tue September 17, 2013

(CNN) -- It has been called the most popular rifle in America, and it briefly returned to the spotlight after Monday's shooting at the Navy Yard: the AR-15.

A U.S. law enforcement official said Monday that gunman Aaron Alexis unleashed a barrage of bullets using an AR-15, a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Authorities believed the AR-15 was used for most of the shooting, the official said. The news prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the strongest proponents of a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, to issue a statement the same day asking, "When will enough be enough?"

However, federal law enforcement sources told CNN Tuesday that authorities have recovered three weapons from the scene of the mass shooting, including one -- a shotgun -- that investigators believe Alexis brought in to the compound. The other two weapons, which sources say were handguns, may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.

The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning's shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1

We need to ban shotguns and guards with handguns.

[regexcellent]

My guess is there won't be anyone clamoring for gun control over this. For one thing the man probably wasn't outright psychotic, just a disgruntled employee. Like that dude who flew a plane into an IRS office in Texas, there's a "reason" and suddenly it's not as hysterical.

[Sava]

How do you rent an AR15? That seems like a bad idea.

[regexcellent]

I don't know. I've never heard of a place renting guns that you can then take around with you. I've only ever heard of ranges renting guns for the duration of the time you're actually at the range shooting them. I'm not even sure that federal law allows for that sort of thing. If it does you'd probably have to get a background check done first.

[C0ckney]

If you actually thought that I believed that Singapore was largely in land area than Norway then you're the moron for not being able to come up with the OBVIOUS alternative measurement of size.

"Size" without further clarification could mean land area, it could mean land area plus internal water area (lakes and such, like Minnesota), it could mean population, it could mean ****ing volume, and you are hopefully smart enough to figure out from context that it was obviously number 3. ESPECIALLY since land area was irrelevant to the discussion, which was GDP per capita. So instead of drawing the obvious conclusions you went for the cheap shot of "oh ho ho you think Norway is smaller in land area than Singapore, how ****ing dumb are you!"

e: and I didn't even say "size" I just said "smaller than" without specifying a parameter, which again should have been very ****ing apparent based on the context of the conversation. So maybe you need an English language lesson in context clues.

so what you're saying is that your statement could have meant many things and was therefore unclear. i agree.

also, saying "[norway] is smaller than singapore" is not a valid way to say what you meant. the correct form would be "norway's population is smaller than singapore's" or "norway has a smaller population than singapore"*. so what you said is grammatically wrong.

now if we put our two opinions together, we can agree that your statement was not just unclear, but also grammatically wrong.

agreement

*other forms are possible, but these seem the most natural.

[regexcellent]

so what you're saying is that your statement could have meant many things and was therefore unclear. i agree

Wrong, I'm saying that if you're willing to do a little bit of thinking of your own it should be plainly ****ing obvious what I meant, regardless of your dumb pedantic bull**** bringing us back to a previous point in the thread nobody is still concerned with discussing. Now you're going back on ignore, I'm not sure why I ever took you off.

[C0ckney]

it's amazing the lengths some people will go to, in order to avoid admitting that they made a simple mistake.

[The Mad Monk]

ex-Rio'd

No, you should have been more clear about the actual subject being population. Take the offer.

[Felch]

C0ckney saw this headline, Larger class sizes worry parents and teachers in the Taylor Public School District and demand change, and he wondered why a bigger class room would bother parents.

[Felch]

so what you're saying is that your statement could have meant many things and was therefore unclear. i agree.

also, saying "[norway] is smaller than singapore" is not a valid way to say what you meant. the correct form would be "norway's population is smaller than singapore's" or "norway has a smaller population than singapore"*. so what you said is grammatically wrong.

now if we put our two opinions together, we can agree that your statement was not just unclear, but also grammatically wrong.

agreement

*other forms are possible, but these seem the most natural.

Ambiguous phrasing is not necessarily grammatically incorrect.

[The Mad Monk]

But it is ambiguous.