(movie trailer voice) They made fun of liberal weenies.

(character from movie) Universal Healthcare is only bad for insurance executives!

(movie trailer voice) They ridiculed queer voices.

(movie caricature of bi guy at a protest, southern U.S. accent) The Bible says Adam AND Eve, not Adam OR Eve!"

(movie trailer voice) This summer, the Left strikes right back.

July 4

SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR
[This film is not yet rated]

Global bowel movement, more like.

PAGEant pervert, nooo

Yes? I just like puzzles, and anagrams of about 9-15 letters are fun to play with. I didn’t just look at the original phrase and immediately know the anagram, but I am least proud to say I found it by “hand”, without computer assistance (beyond, technically, using a notes app as a workspace).

Edit: My phone let me misspell some Ps as Os, and I was missing an aopstrpohe.

Heh, we happen to have gotten caught up in two different posts’ comments back to back (from my perspective).

“Thrall of money” can be rearranged to spell “holy lemon fart”.

Every now and then I see a phrase and wonder about anagrams. Really paid off this time.

As bitjunkie said, if you were referring to 90s in the possessive, it would be 90s’ since it’s a plural noun already - much like parents’ mortgages or stores’ buildings.

That said, I would probably look at the phrase “90s child” as either (1) a compound noun not needing anything to be possessive (like “ice cream”), or (2) with “90s” as an adjective modifying “child” (like “latchkey kid”).

That’s some weak-ass homeopathic heroin, only 5X / 2C (I have no idea if 2.5C would sound nonsensical to a homeopath). Gotta dilute that a lot more times, that’s how you make it more potent. Effing 19th century pseudoscience.

'90s is a contraction of 1990s, or whatever other century’s tenth decade is implied. So the apostrophe belongs as an example of a contraction or possessive :)

Partly its about reminding his supporters and the neutrals that the people who actively dislike him really do exist. One of their talking points around election fraud/denialism is the idea that there just aren’t enough voters against Trump to justify the votes, because that’s what they’re told.

Granted, they’re also told that people like these booers are all paid actors. Paid by whom, and how do they keep anyone from blabbing about these arrangements?

Anyway, every person who gets splintered off from the Trump Train is a win, so push every way you can.

Basically apostrophes are never used to separate a word from a normal suffix in this kind of novel or unusual construction. Pretty much just use apostrophes for contractions and (most) possessives. Example: 90s, not 90’s.

–

Edit: In English, for English words. Some languages, either those normally rendered in Latin script* or transliterated into it**, make use of apostrophes either to modify an adjacent phoneme or to indicate particular sounds or a glottal stop.

* English-like letters and punctuation

** Like Japanese written as if it were English, for example “Ohayo gozaimasu” which is written in hiragana as おはようございま.

Source: Amateur with the dangerous amount of a little knowledge

–

Edit2: Others point out (correctly) that referencing the 1990s as a decade would be properly written as '90s, which is still a use of an apostrophe for a contraction.

Modify as you will.

I definitely get that from a reasonable perspective. But then I think about the words being used, and part of me wants terms like “upper” and “middle” to represent portions of a whole that have broadly similar sizes. But that doesn’t really reflect the realities of the meaningful differences between two different lives usually meant by the terms, so that part of me needs to take a back seat.

I’m not even sure I would say we are arguing. You provided your version I offered mine. We disagree, maybe, but I don’t think either of us is concerned enough to make a concerted effort to change the other’s opinion.

Yes, I did just argue over the semantics of argument itself. What of it? This is America the Internet, after all.

Like what the Kool-Aid man does to walls? We need a stronger fruit punch is all.

jeffrey epstein list(1)(1) final(1).txt

I’d go with 20% as upper class. I think of “wealthy” as having money that lets you come and go as you please, just buy a fancy car if you want without really having to think about the finances of it.

There is a D&D-type game that measures wealth as a rating of 0 to 5, and you can make essentially unlimited purchases of items costing up to 1 below your wealth rating essentially at-will. So someone can buy a sandwich whenever, someone else could take a decent vacation/cruise whenever, another could buy a decent car without worry, one could buy a nice house like it’s nothing, and finally someone who could buy a mansion or private jet without real concern. Those in the couple-hundred-million to billions range.

I’d draw the Wealthy line somewhere in the mid-4 range on that scale. You could also consider it as “the point where safe/moderate investments could continue supplying a family plenty of comfort without working for two+ generations”.

Hrm, 77 million people voted for him…