Jump to content

ztejas

Certifiably Surly
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    62215

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ztejas

  1. ztejas
    Damn I like this response because it makes you think even further. Part of the issue with the original statement is it begins with "we". It immediately quits working when you expand that to: "We, as a people, is a population..." Like, no, get the fuck out of here with that 😆 Maybe that's the root of it. The writer in question is trying to pair a plural with a noun that is rarely used as a singular. It's like tenses are flying all over the place and it makes everything clunky.
  2. ztejas
    I'm not sure how that changes anything. Seems like a different construction entirely. In your example - Asgard is the subject. "a people" has nothing to do with the "is". The "is" is being modified by "Asgard". That reddit post is asking if it's okay to use the term "a people" there and it's totally fine. I don't have a problem with "a people" it's the "a people is" that starts to sound backwoodsy. (or in JJ's example "a people that has")
  3. ztejas
    God no not any more. By 2012/2013 he was knocking on that door and probably was from '13 to '18ish. (granted he never had any playoff success without Durant) Either way - Weaver doing anything to elicit Westbrook comparisons means he's doing something right. Unless it's bricking 3s or turning the ball over 5 times a game.
  4. ztejas
    But you don't say "a people is" you say "a people are".
  5. ztejas
    I mean at the end of the day it's always describing a group of individual persons in some fashion or another. Not trying to get into the semantics - I think the grammar rule here is "fuck you that's why". Good luck ESL learners.
  6. ztejas
    I mean yeah that would be cool if he turns into a top 10 player in the NBA 😂 He doesn't have Westbrook's ball skills or vision. I think he's a little bigger/longer though, isn't he?
  7. ztejas
    So if they go to 9 it's been reported/confirmed they would do a 3 + 6 model? In that case - yes I'll take playing Arky every year if it gets us to the right # of conference games.
  8. ztejas
    Respect. Like Jordan stepping away at the height of his powers.
  9. ztejas
    I'd delete this. They may try and silence you.
  10. ztejas
    Because I'm joking.
  11. ztejas
    Here's more. I was right. It has to do with the specific word "people". Yay English! It's kind of like "they". You would never say "they has" even though they can be used to refer to a singular noun. More:
  12. ztejas
    Idk. Let's thicken the plot. I don't have word currently but Google docs agrees that have is more appropriate. Still not sure what the rule or rules are here that are applicable but I'm trusting my gut. #1 doesn't sound right and it's why JJ started the thread.
  13. ztejas
    Moochie Dixon has done okay at SMU but it's not a particularly easy room to crack and it isn't getting easier. He had 25 catches in '22 and '23 and just 8 so far in '24. SMU would probably gladly take Wingo.
  14. ztejas
    The game used to be played a bunch in Little Rock. We won like the first 15 meetings of the series until the 1930s. Since WW2 ended Texas is 16-8 in Arkansas and 16-8 in Austin. There's a handful of neutral-site games in there as well. They are actually relatively better - if anything - at kicking our ass in Austin. You can compare it to Tech who in that same span won 11 in Lubbock and 7 in Austin (but took 51 combined Ls). I'm not afraid of playing them every year but I don't think it's a particularly beneficial arrangement for Texas to reengage in.
  15. ztejas
    Yeah because that's a good analogy. A team that Arkansas doesn't hate that they've played at a neutral site - in Texas - every single year outside of three - two of which were in College Station. We're talking about a home-and-home and playing them every season.
  16. ztejas
    I feel like the ACC adds have meshed a little bit better. I mean SMU wasn't that much of a stretch geographically but even though Cal and Stanford are way out there they have a lot in common with Duke/UNC/Wake. The travel for non-revenue sports especially still seems preposterous but culture wise and athletics wise Cal and Stanford slide right in.
  17. ztejas
    I guess so. I think it just sounds weird.
  18. ztejas
    Nevermind - just thought about it further. I think people should always be plural. Because if you subbed say, family, for people you would write it "we are a family that has" You wouldn't say "they are a people that has experienced x". (Family I could listen to a case for either way maybe)
  19. ztejas
    Wrong. If not technically I'm not a fan stylistically. Who have*
  20. ztejas
    Dickey's still up and running up there I guess.
  21. ztejas
    Exactly. "They're usually bad" is a reason to NOT play them. Makes it worse whenever you lose and changes how each team prepares going in.
  22. ztejas
    I guess it's just fucked across the board because of all the end of season non-conference rivalry games. Still it's WILD that FSU is done with their slate and there's still a month before the ACC CG. Everyone in the SEC is at least between 5 and 7 games played. 9 conference games would help this. Obviously.
  23. ztejas
    They got a bib gourmand.
  24. ztejas
    Guess it is Miami then - I hadn't looked up the tiebreaker. (Assuming they beat Wake and Syracuse) Also - re stupid fucking conference scheduling - how does Clemson just have one conference game left and SMU has three to play? Florida State has already played all eight of their conference games. The fuck are we doing here?
  25. ztejas
    I think this could wind up being watchable. Wisconsin has played decent ball in spots this season and you know it's going to be drunk and rowdy. Just not sure Wisconsin has the horses.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...