I am priveleged to be the first to inform everyone of the wonderful news that Blue has the title line (titular) in Half Life 2
No, you don't use sic because it's not a spelling error, only a variance of the word.
Technically speaking, it's the actual correct spelling of the word seeing as that's wher the language originated.
Sit down troll.
KOTOR was so unbelievably over-hyped and over-rated... this news is like "big deal"
Using the plural pronoun to refer to a single person of unspecified gender is an old and honorable pattern in English, not a newfangled bit of degeneracy or a politically correct plot to avoid sexism (though it often serves the latter purpose). People who insist that “Everyone has brought his own lunch” is the only correct form do not reflect the usage of centuries of fine writers. A good general rule is that only when the singular noun does not specify an individual can it be replaced plausibly with a plural pronoun: “Everybody” is a good example. We know that “everybody” is singular because we say "everybody is here, “ not “everybody are here” yet we tend to think of “everybody” as a group of individuals, so we usually say “everybody brought their own grievances to the bargaining table.” “Anybody” is treated similarly.
However, in many written sentences the use of singular “their” and "they” creates an irritating clash even when it passes unnoticed in speech. It is wise to shun this popular pattern in formal writing. Often expressions can be pluralized to make the "they” or “their” indisputably proper: “All of them have brought their own lunches.” “People” can often be substituted for “each.” Americans seldom avail themselves of the otherwise very handy British “one” to avoid specifying gender because it sounds to our ears rather pretentious: “One” s hound should retrieve only one” s own grouse.” If you decide to try "one,” don’t switch to “they” in mid-sentence: "One has to be careful about how they speak” sounds absurd because the word “one” so emphatically calls attention to its singleness. The British also quite sensibly treat collective bodies like governmental units and corporations as plural ("Parliament have approved their agenda") whereas Americans insist on treating them as singular.
The story to this game is hard to understand at first. Once you start playing through, the pieces fall together. The way the story unfolds is kind of cool. The story starts out pretty bluntly. You are Jack Carver. A gentleman that is escorting a journalist to a secluded island.
Oh please do explain THAT logic.
I'm not for drugs at all, but that seems to be a bit of an over generalization. I'd love to see some facts to prove that.
Whats so special about newwer games? I mean it would still be the same amount of data that needs to be sent,
They only need to know the player info, the server shouldnt track shell cassings or waving grass, stuff like that just just be done on the client side.
the first expansion for the award-winning Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing game set in the Star Wars(r) universe.
You obviously know zero about middle-eastern politics and history, but it's always amusing to hear from the peanut gallery. Try getting yourself an actual education sometime, scooter.
Those screams haunt me to this day... "Oh no, oh no, this guy is PACKEY"
We are not all the same, our relationships are not all the same, and no matter how hard leftists try to make humanity otherwise, they will always fail.
The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.
They wan't the right to get married.
They have the right to get married.
"Restricting people's soliciting of their religion is not necessarily restricting their "free exercise.""
Actually, unfortunately it does. I think what we are confusing here is the right of government to impose or make laws in respect to religion, down to the individual’s right to exercise it.
Paying attention in high-school instead of smoking weed in my buddies car may have been a good start
If indeed the first amendment is the basis of "separation of church and state," then I would still argue that it doesn't work both ways. The first amendment doesn't say "legislators shall not legislate according to their beliefs," or even that church and state shall remain separate. It simply says that congress isn't allowed to go mucking about with peoples beliefs by way of legislation. The wording is, "regarding the establishment of religion." Basically it's saying that congress isn't allowed to outlaw religions or make one religion the official religion of the state or the people.
Look at this mans run in with the government.