Cantousent

The dative is used to denote possession regularly in both Greek and Latin. It is so common, I'm a taken aback at the discussion. Please note "o far the dative case has been used to indicate the person advantaged or disadvantaged by an action (mi aurum dedit 'he gave the gold to me', mihi aurum abstulit 'he took the gold from me'; this sense includes the possessor aslo, e.g. est mihi pecunia 'I have money'). But, as was said at the time, the range of the dative is far wider than that, and its root meaning seems to be that the person is in some way interested or involved in the action of the verb..." "[r]emember the two ways of expressing the idea of possession in Latin: (a) Habeo or teneo + acc. 'I have'. e.g. seruum habeo 'I have a slave.'. (b) est/sunt +person possessing in the dative (lit. 'there is/are to x...')..." Jones and Sidwell Reading Latin page 181. http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Latin-Gramma...TF8&s=books Greek is a little more familiar to me than Latin, but this rule is so pervasive in both languages that anyone who wants to understand either should become familiar with the idea. In fact, sometimes the verb is missing and all you have is the nominative and dative nouns. Catapult for me. I was saying before that Latin generally required the verb before the dative to denote possession. I've since confirmed that Latin generally required the verb before the dative to denote possession.

I was thinking of a picture. There is a shotglass sitting on a bar teble. It is filled halfway. There is a light to the side that casts a beam through the glass, which then hits the table beside the glass. A little away from the shotglass, there is a collection of bottles. Scotch. Bourbon. Vodka. Gin. etc. The caption underneath reads, "The glass is half empty."

Not only that, but, since we're playing word games, what I said was "the customer is the reason you have a job." In that chain of causality, the reason you have a job is because of the customer. Hell, if you're a manufacturer, the reason you have a job is because of the customer. The reason you make widgets is because some widget buying fellow provides for you a reason to work. Literally, the reason you have a job is because of the customer.

whatever, no business, no job. You have a job because of the customer. The boss says, "hey, we've got this customer who needs this thing. Let's hire this unworthy fellow, Volourn, to sell it to them. If he can't serve the customer properly, let's can him!" :Cant's wolfish grin icon:

What a stupid position. The company wouldn't exist if it didn't offer a service to someone. Somewhere along the line, your company wouldn't exist without the customer. You have a job because you have customers.

alan's right. Your job at Gamestop is to help customers with the product. Part of that is asking open ended, leading questions to help the customer make a good choice. I know we've got a big anti-customer rally going on in this thread, but the customer is the reason you have a job. Some of them are bad? Guess what, some of them will always be bad. Sometimes, they're not bad. Sometimes, you're a bad customer service representative. I'm not saying that to be meanspirited, Calax, but your attitude just sounds horrible. If you look at customers, as a group, as a bunch of ill-informed people who waste your time, then you will be doomed to have bad experiences with them. I've been dealing with customers pretty much my entire adult life. Sure, my customers, particularly over the past few years, aren't exactly in the same frame of mind when they see me as when they go to a fast food joint. ...But they're customers nonetheless. So, go ahead and complain. Vent. You have the right. At the end of the day, however, you have to be willing to look at yourself as and employee and be honest. If you were a customer, would you like the service you provide?

I don't see what everyone has against Drizzt. Sure, he's cliched, but what isn't in the Forgotten Realms? I mean, I've never read any Drizzt books, and I've only run into him a few times in CRPGs, but those incidents were quickly done even if it didn't come to violence, which, unless he had something I was compelled to kill him to take, I didn't attack Drizzt anyhow. The original idea of some sort of evil race spawning a good guy didn't begin and end with Drizzt. I just don't see why everyone hates the guy so much.

Well, for what it's worth, my wife agrees with your position. Her reasoning is a bit different, however. She think sending the youngest is okay if his unit is called. She does not think the next in line should be called to the war. Frankly, I still say that, wherever they're assigned, the royal family should fulfill their obligation. On the other hand, I don't really think about the royal family very often. :D

It's tom foolery.

Well, customers can be jerks, but so can the people behind the counter. Amazing, the customers, employees, and (except for the evil robotic overlords in some industries) the employers are all humans. There are bad folks in every one of those groups.

Oh, she was kind of slow of mind type of deal. In that example she did exactly the right thing. However, she was slow. ...And frustrating.

I used to teach customer service seminars. I guess we called it facilitating or some such. At this time of night, I'm not even sure I'm spelling it correctly. I'll take my chances with Spellmar. Anyhow, I remember one afternoon one of the customers was yelling at a sales girl. I went over to talk to him. He insisted I "tell the girl she was stupid." Why? He had told her he had exact change and she waited until he'd pulled it out of his pocket before she entered it into the register. I explained that I understood that he was upset but that she neither stupid nor mocking him in any way. She was accountable for the register, and so she could only enter the exact amount as she received it. I spent a good fifteen minutes on this, working with him as best as I could. At one point, I said, "I understand you are upset, but I will not now nor will I ever tell her she's stupid for following her instructions." The guy wasn't all that unhappy when he left, which was a total surpise. She was afraid that she'd be in trouble, but I assured her that she'd done nothing wrong. However. she really was kind of slow. I wouldn't ever call an employee stupid. It's unprofessional. I sure thought it, and about this particular employee no less. Some customers are crazy. That's all there is to it. You accomodate them as best as possible, but you have to understand that dealing with the public means encountering unreasonable people. ...But, hey, you post here. You should be used to unreasonable people. Not only that, but I've had great customers over the years. I'm a customer at one of my old stores and the customers still know my name. They come up to talk to me, chat about current event and what's happening in their lives. I've had bad customers. Hell, I've had days where one bad customer ruined my whole day. I've had great customers who made work a pleasure. I don't know where you work. I don't know the conditions and circumstances, but I imagine that it's not always a complete loss.

Which is quite safe, so it doesn't count. :Cant's slight smile with a raised eyebrow icon:

It's a lie! He says that then starts blubbing like a toddler! I'd report you right now, but what good would it do? *grumble mumble weep*

"And, back on topic, the school should have NO right to intervere in ANY off school activities including online bullying unless it's done during school time." To go a bit further, they should have no authority to act concerning offenses committed during school time unless they are comitted on campus. If a student skips school, the school should punish the child for skipping school. Law enforcement should handle off school offenses. Otherwise, the role of schools ceases being education and becomes enforcement.

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out why I hadn't heard a response from Steve. It occurs to me that he now sports a moderator tag. However, that doesn't mean that he can't engage in heated debate with the inmates. I do disagree with your stance, but I've always respected your ability to argue your case, Steve. If you throw a few punches and maybe a jab or two, I won't complain about it to anyone! :Cant's friendly grin icon:

"that was your first choice"

Well, apart from the fact that the poll really does suck, I have to agree that I might go for a Call of Cthulu bases CRGP. Not the FPS crap, either. I'm talking stats and character development and finding new items and talking to NPCs and such. The poll puts the question between fantasy and ALL others. Lumping every else against fantasy is just stupid.

You know, that's where I differ. I hate the fact that every crpg these days seems to need to mix sci-fi and fantasy. Sci-fi has to rely on some sort of supernatural gimmick and there has to be sci-fi at the end of every fantasy game. Hell, even BG2 had a damnable space ship. WoW has sci-fi at the end, for crying out loud. Why can't we have a fantasy or sci-fi game? I think Darque's right that we can't seem to get a sci-fi game that doesn't include some mystical element.

The enemy, if they believe the prince is a high enough profile target, will probably dedicate some resources to finding out where the prince is and targetting him. Perversely, the more folks mewl about the prince's deployment, the higher profile he, and his unit, will have.

Well, that's the real dispute. One way of dealing with it is using Vol's reasoning, which serves well enough. I tend to view fantasy as a setting. That's in much the same way as a fictional work might be a mystery, a horror, or a drama. All three probably contain more or less similar elements, but the setting and presentation are going to determine the classification. Gothic romance might include vampires, which makes it a fantasy, but the heavy use of romance conventions will make it a romance. That might well be different from a historical romance which is well researched and contains no supernatural elements. Star Wars might be a fantasy if we equate the use of force powers with magic. I think that's perfectly fair. We could also call it science fiction because of the setting and other elements. Someone earlier mentioned science fantasy, which works well enough, but is probably unnecessary. For my own part, I would classify a work as a fantasy if magic, understood as such, is central to the work and provides the structure of the universe. For instance, even though The Chronicles of Amber starts in a modern setting, I would call it fantasy because the magic is not incidental, but central. By the same token, I would call Star Trek science fiction because, even when the series cited supernatural occurances or powers, they are not central to the overarching universe. Of course, my approach isn't perfect, but there is no perfect way to classify fiction. To give an example, I tend to view magic as something different from supernatural as well. We have vampire stories that fit into the genre of horror. If the vampire casts spells in the story, and the story itself revolves more around the element of fantasy than horror, then it's a fantasy novel. If the vampire kills people and the main thrust of the story is put the reader in suspence or scare them, then it's horror. I understand that folks can make equally valid arguments for other systems, but I'm envisioning walking into your local library or book store and going to a section dedicated to a particular genre. Unless it's a small storefront with a mixed sci-fi/fantasy area, you'll probably find Star Wars and Star Trek in the Science fiction stacks and the Chronicles of Amber and the Belgariad in the Fantasy stacks.

Are we calling him the Black Prince now? When did that happen? Doesn't bode well, as the original Black Prince massacred thousands. I imagine he was willing to go to war when he signed up. The question was always whether sending him into combat, being such a celebrity and therefore a target, put him and his fellows in too much risk, i.e. they'd have to spend so much effort protecting him that they wouldn't be able to do the job they were there to do. I hope someone competent has made an objective assessment and decided that he'll do more good than harm. I hope the Royal Family hasn't just insisted that their boy should get what he wants regardless of the consequences. What a surprise, Steve. You know, if it looked, even a little, as if the kid were trying to avoid going to the war, then he'd be pilloried. Folks would call him a coward or worse. Now, if he insists on fulfilling what he undoubtedly feels is his obligation, then folks can charge him with being selfish. How pathetic. He is a member of the armed services. As such, he should fulfill whatever obligations are necessary to act within the role of his commission. That's regardless of how many people want to make it a no win situation for the prince. Even if some so-called "Objective" arbiter made the decision that he should not serve in Iraq, folks would still blame the royal family. After all, it would have been fixed. Undoubtedly it would be a conspiracy. :Eldar's disgusted look icon: ...And what message would it send to the good people of Great Britain? Folks already claim that money and power insulate the rich from risk. When one of the royal family, as part of a regular deployment, is sent to a war zone, he's just getting "what he wants regardless of the consequences." It's not even that I'm a fan of the royal family. Mostly, I don't care about them. Still, your argument seems particularly unfair. Of course, I'm not surprised.

I would love to play a game that strays from the supernatural, but it would have to be well done. I remember a PnP spy game I used to play. I can't recall the name off hand, but I liked the game. Anyhow, it was great, but some of the abilities depicted on some of the characters were not humanly possible. Does that make it supernatural? Does citing a supernatural cause make it fantasy, while a character doing something that is, by its very nature fantastic, make it a fantasy? There's a hardcore science fiction series out there about alternate universes. It's a pretty good read. Anyhow, the one big leap is that there are these alternate universes. It's science fiction. I view it as science fiction. There's a lot of hardcore science in the books. The author is a scientist, complete with that all important Dr. in front of her name. Does the fact that it contains something that is, as far as we know, fantastic make it fantasy? How about elements of fantasy that occur in fiction of every sort? The way genres work, we'd have to cross classify books from every genre as fantasy, including non-fiction. haha. So, I voted for Fantasy, but that's only because the poll was particularly slanted. Well, either that or poorly worded.

"Oh, other kids are harassing you? Leave, because we want to reinforce the notion that bullying is fun and the person we punish will be the victim." I don't know where I stand on the law, but I think the idea that the bullies should win while we punish the victims is absolutely stupid. Of course, we don't really have bullies here. If someone acts like a bully, they're liable to be warned, censured, or outright banned. ...And I agree with that. The real question, as stated previously, is to establish when words have the equivalent impact of actual harassment. The threshold must be high. I know that sucks, but the threshold must be high enough that we don't create a larger enforcement problem than the harassment problem in the first place. Next, we have to agree on where the right to privacy ends and the enforcement of the law begins. That's going to be important. So, I think it's probably wise to have something in place to help create a relatively safe environment. ...But online communities, like real world communities, will always have some of these incidents. If we take a draconian stand, we're going to have a much worse problem on our hands than the initial problem. I'm sad that a kid killed himself. I won't get maudlin or dramatic about it, but I honestly do think its dreadful. However, the number of children who commit suicide as a result of online bullying is probably quite small. Personally, I would be far more worried about children being victimized by adults than children on the internet. Still, the idea that the victim should just stop using the internet seems like a particularly poor argument.

California is not currently up for grabs. Candidates for the general election would be more willing court the voters here if the Democrats didn't take them for granted and the Republicans hadn't taken for granted that the state is out of play. It's all or nothing with the Electoral College, so there's no reason to spend the time and money campaigning somewhere unless you have some chance of carrying the day. As much as you folks rail against the Electoral College, it's probably not going to be eliminated any time soon. Whether or not, as ~Di suggests, some folks view it as a gift from God, the Constitution is difficult to Amend.