Mega Thread The Random Thoughts Thread Part 1

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why the feck do they need 3 ambulances and a helicopter!

Meanwhile down the road somebody's Nan has broken her hip and has been laying in agony for 5 hours as she is too scared to call as she doesn't have ambulance cover!

someones fighting for his life and you come up with this rubbish.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It hasn't always been incorrect terminology. Back in the 70s, we were schooled on using the term Aborigine (person) instead of Aboriginal (object) as the most appropriate and acceptable term.

I'm always having to catch myself on this. The learnings of those early years can be so deeply imbedded that they're hard to break.
Reminds me. I was schooled that Aborigine was a noun and Aboriginal was the adjective by my linguistics prof this year. He is a prescriptive linguist, mind you, and believes that language is static and can't evolve, so I wouldn't reach too much into it.
 
Reminds me. I was schooled that Aborigine was a noun and Aboriginal was the adjective by my linguistics prof this year. He is a prescriptive linguist, mind you, and believes that language is static and can't evolve, so I wouldn't reach too much into it.

Good god, I didn't know there was such a belief. I assume he's a young-earth creationist as well.
 
Good god, I didn't know there was such a belief.
Poorly worded on my part. Rather than language "can't" evolve, it "shouldn't" evolve. Still, that line of linguistics doesn't make much sense. I mean, it's basically a scholarly grammar Nazi.

Also, you know the people who argue that you shouldn't use 'literally' in the figurative sense and it should literally mean literally? That's prescriptivism, too.
 
Poorly worded on my part. Rather than language "can't" evolve, it "shouldn't" evolve. Still, that line of linguistics doesn't make much sense. I mean, it's basically a scholarly grammar Nazi.

Also, you know the people who argue that you shouldn't use 'literally' in the figurative sense and it should literally mean literally? That's prescriptivism, too.
Did you do linguistics just to be a nob online?
 
Poorly worded on my part. Rather than language "can't" evolve, it "shouldn't" evolve. Still, that line of linguistics doesn't make much sense. I mean, it's basically a scholarly grammar Nazi.

Also, you know the people who argue that you shouldn't use 'literally' in the figurative sense and it should literally mean literally? That's prescriptivism, too.

Ah, that makes much more sense. :p

I am definitely a grammar Nazi but I would massage my Nazism by saying language should evolve, just preferably not in stupid ways. ;)

I guess that makes me a grammar eugenicist.
 
Did you do linguistics just to be a nob online?
No, I study tourism and linguistics because it's an area of study that has always interested me. The linguistics side of my study goes well with the tourism side of it, as I would like to spend my life travelling the globe. I want to travel to all sorts of places. Hot places, cold places, exhilarating places and other places. I want to immerse myself in new cultures. I want to eat new food. I want to speak new languages with new people that I've met and educate them on why they are bastardising their own mother tongue.

So, to sum up, yes.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Too obscure for me, fyi it's Cristiano you dumb ****.
Don't tell me how to speak my own language you ******* prescriptivist! Language is constantly changing and evolving
 
someones fighting for his life and you come up with this rubbish.
,
Someone is always fighting for their lives, unfortunately not all are cricket players.
If it's rubbish to think 3 ambulances and a helicopter for one guy on an open field is excessive then yup I'm rubbish.
 
,
Someone is always fighting for their lives, unfortunately not all are cricket players.
If it's rubbish to think 3 ambulances and a helicopter for one guy on an open field is excessive then yup I'm rubbish.

When there are heart problems, I usually see 2 ambulances involved
 
,
Someone is always fighting for their lives, unfortunately not all are cricket players.
If it's rubbish to think 3 ambulances and a helicopter for one guy on an open field is excessive then yup I'm rubbish.

Why are you even talking about this? Who even goes "s**t a guy is dying, LOL LOOK AT THE AMBOS AND STUFF, ISN'T THAT EXCESSIVE?"
 
Why are you even talking about this? Who even goes "s**t a guy is dying, LOL LOOK AT THE AMBOS AND STUFF, ISN'T THAT EXCESSIVE?"
Guys are dying everywhere, many don't get an ambulance on time. I'm glad you haven't had that happen to anyone you know.
 
Guys are dying everywhere, many don't get an ambulance on time. I'm glad you haven't had that happen to anyone you know.

>2013+1
>Telling emergency personnel how to do their job and how to allocate their resources.
>Implying a potential brain injury to a young person doesn't warrant an airlift where possible (An oval is a perfect place for an air lift).
>Implying standard procedure is not multiple ambulances and or early response units.
>Implying recent high profile brain injuries were not tended to in exactly the same fashion (helicopter made available, multiple ambulances.)
>Implying anyone is given preference just because of social status (aside from presidents, prime ministers etc.)

I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing and have strict procedures in place. They can't save everyone, that is a fact of life. Hughes was close to the city (short airlift to hospital) so it makes perfect sense. For the record, my father died of an MI and ambulances were by no means quick to respond, it happens. Hughes was lucky, and I hope he pulls through.
 
Guys are dying everywhere, many don't get an ambulance on time. I'm glad you haven't had that happen to anyone you know.
I'm pretty sure Hospitals have more than 3 ambulances you twit. I'm also sure the doctors assessed his condition and called for the appropriate medical help.

I highly doubt they said "It's a cricketer! GET TO DA CHOPPER!!!"
 
Sorry , please don't get me wrong ,
just want to know,

what the devil has Eddie---- got / demands / carry / insinuates / threatens
the league with what we , or , others wear in a clash match against one of the most hated sides in the League
He is after all only a CLUB President when it all boils down. Plus he doesn't OWN the copyright to the colours of Black & White . We as a club should be able to wear them as long as we do not use their pattern and with another colour to supplement. This rubbish last year we needed their permission to wear the PB is aggravating when it wasn't acceptable by another club to change their strip / didn't have one . It shows that the league should be held in contempt for their treatment of some clubs to the "betterment" of others .

Sorry that's my rant for the month, just so frustrated with both the AFL & SANFL.

The club needs people with Balls to say

"Hang On"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top