>>12670009fortunately it won't so ur hope is going to waste
as usual?
disgustan
>>12670026it'll be fine. standards for getting accepted are pretty low and i can manage without scholarships if it comes to it
weird makeup, horrible nails/outfit/hair, subpar at best pose/expression
>>12670028that's just the way it is. if i were trying to make an actual statement i'd just say "seems she couldn't make a strong argument for her case" because that's the natural way to say it. by using somebody in the first place you're being snarky by making it intentionally indirect, so "somebody couldn't make a strong argument for her case" seems like a strange middleground to me unless you're intentionally trying to highlight the contrast between being indirect and obvious. it sort of reads like "our department has found that certain employees consistently fail to meet deadlines, BRIAN."
absolutely hate this sort of shit. what really bothers me is when people try to hide behind terms like descriptive and prescriptive linguistics as an excuse for just saying what they want. singular they is a great example actually
>prescriptive linguistics is just some random officials trying to tell people that speaking one way or another is wrong when that doesn't really make any sense. however people speak is correct and the job of linguists is to record and sort that. people keep using singular they so it's by definition correct>nononono! you can't say accent! that implies there's a correct way to speak and someone is differing from the norm so there's a lot of underlying racism! you HAVE to say dialect! i don't care that everyone uses accent in a way that fits perfectly into the current definition of dialect!well i think the argument goes that y'all uses an apostrophe which is only for not contractions (can't, shan't, won't) and it wouldn't be acceptable to actually substitute the words "you all" in for "y'all" in a lot of it's use cases like with most other contractions
