2002-09-08 creationist idiot

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2002-09-11 02:02pm

English is workable for the most part, but is rife with so many contradictions in spelling and grammar that I'm surprised that any foreigner can learn it competently at all. At the least, Japanese and most forms of Chinese are internally self-consistent (though rely on huge quantities of rote memorization to be able to read).

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-11 06:24pm

The English language also has 40,000 words. 15,000 of these are necessary to be considered fluent in English. In most languages, there are merely 20,000 words or so, of which 10,000 are required. English puts up many barriers to prevent foreigners from speaking it fluently.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-09-11 07:22pm

Just out of curiosity, how many languages are compulsory at school in north america? can you choose, for example, to have german, french or spanish [or portuguese]?

I'm wondering because, even as a portuguese native speaker, I always found english to be a lot easier. You just have to realize, for example, how many more verbal tenses are in latin languages, and that the spelling involves a lot more notation than plain english (ç, ~, and some more not avaible in this board)

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-09-11 08:28pm

I think the languages offered by schools depend upon whether they have a qualified teacher and public demand, which varies from region to region. In my hometown, the larger senior secondary schools offer French, Spanish, and Japanese. I think in Northern Alberta it's possible to study Ukrainian. I think the compulsory part comes into fulfilling a certain language requirement level. That is, universities will have a certain criteria before you get in. If you have completed a Grade 12 level in X language, then it will count towards your application. To the best of my knowledge, some universities have a language requirement and some don't.

XPViking

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-09-14 04:15am

Mike, I think you'd better keep a template with answers for the idiots...

KG

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-09-14 04:33am

kheegan wrote:Mike, I think you'd better keep a template with answers for the idiots...

An interesting tactic I saw on the recreational christianity site was to keep a brief list of the standard arguments, so you could easily point out just how unoriginal they really were.

Mike does it to a degree (by linking to his website), but it is so much more casually insulting to say:
"Ah, I see you are trying moronic creationist tactic #3<link>. Well, the standard rebuttal for tactic #3 may be found here<link>."

The RC Christian Cliches page:
http://216.131.88.114/recreational/cliche.html

(Hmm, I only just noticed that 'Roman Catholic' and 'Recreational Christianity' have the same initials. Maybe Chick is right and the Catholics are only pretending to be Christians!)