I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
People were complaining way to early on, in my opinion, that there were too many Burnhams, but now it's really got to a point where it's starting to be ridiculous.
I don't mind the character, but give us a break!
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
Oversaturated with Burnham. How about an Amanda? Still has ties to Vulcan and Burnham (and SPOCK of course). Heck throw in Stonn! Just someone different. Another Lorca would be cool though I guess we need to see what the future holds for his character...
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
Both versions, Could care less vs. Couldn't care less, are common expressions (in the US at least) that mean the same thing (the the person doesn't care about whatever is being discussed). Either version is considered correct.
The second 2* Burney is unnecessary, same skills, and after the bugfix no alien either. Dessert Burnham should have been the 3* variant and - for the sake of it - add a 1* Burnham as well for the Honor Hall just like the 1* Stargazer Picard. :P
"Everything about the Jem'Hadar is lethal!" - Eris (ST-DS9 Episode 2x26 "The Jem'Hadar")
Oversaturated with Burnham. How about an Amanda? Still has ties to Vulcan and Burnham (and SPOCK of course). Heck throw in Stonn! Just someone different. Another Lorca would be cool though I guess we need to see what the future holds for his character...
she (and surak) briefly appeared in the vault, but have since vanished. It seems probable to me that DB was denied by the actors or their estates to have their likenesses to be used in the game. Esp. considering that either of them would have been better 500th crew in the eyes of most.
I guess she was in TAS, so maybe they could use that version at the very least.
The second 2* Burney is unnecessary, same skills, and after the bugfix no alien either. Dessert Burnham should have been the 3* variant and - for the sake of it - add a 1* Burnham as well for the Honor Hall just like the 1* Stargazer Picard. :P
Please no. Do NOT pur her in the honor hall. How would she rate as honorable? Give her a few seasons to prove herself and you can argue the point. For now, there are so many genuinely honorable characters we do not need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
If I'd actually been able to obtain all of the earlier variants, I would probably be over it by now. But I only have prisoner and Vulcan graduation, and absent some decent luck from my one 10 pack purchase this week, probably won't get Prospect, so I can't complain. I totally understand where a lot of folks are coming from, though.
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
It doesn’t matter if it’s grammatically correct, it’s an idiom used by many people depending on where they grew up. Give it a rest. You need something more serious to worry about. Especially if it bothers you that much.
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
Both versions, Could care less vs. Couldn't care less, are common expressions (in the US at least) that mean the same thing (the the person doesn't care about whatever is being discussed). Either version is considered correct.
No, they don't mean the same thing at all.
Actually they do, because like many expressions, it’s an idiom. It does not need to be gramatically correct to express the same meaning. I do find it interesting how grammatical purest get so bent out of shape over other people’s cultural and geographic expressions.
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
Yes. Some people like to talk english real good. What does objective truth matter, anyway?
😉
I had better add this edit before people come after me. Edit: if you are not my daughter nor my student, I don't really care what you do. It is an objective linguistic fact that "could care less" is wrong in this case. It is also an obvious fact that everyone knows what you're saying. This is not a big deal.
I actually like the two 2* versions best ... from what I've seen of Discovery (8 episodes) I find that these two are nicely iconic for the character.
- Desert version ... because it is the first time we see her on screen ... in literally the first scene of the new series. (this is a version I've actually wanted since Discovery came out)
- Prisoner version ... because of how events pan out (won't spoil anything for those who have not seen the show).
The 4* versions are actually all meh and I feel highlight the least interesting aspect of the character.
- Two are basically the same character.
- and the third (Tactical) is cookie cutter stuff.
As for more Burnhams ... well, in those 8 episodes she doesn't really change much after the "prologue" stuff ... who knows, maybe her character will develop more but until there are some really interesting developments I'd say the current range of Burnhams cover her well enough (up to episode 8).
I was a bit surprised to get two more I was hoping for some of the other crew tbh.
I wonder what we're going to get next week. I've got a few Andorians, now, and plenty of Burnham (at least the latest is good for voyages).
I'd like to have another Vorta (Eris!) and a changeling - oddly I don't have any changelings in my crew worth anything!
I just want a decent Archer for next week. I know this is a "Discovery" mega event, but we have Thelin, we have Shran, we have Shras, we have Tarah. I'm glad for all the Andorian add-ons, but now I want a T'Pau and an Archer. T'Pol would be nice too but I won't hold my breath.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
Both versions, Could care less vs. Couldn't care less, are common expressions (in the US at least) that mean the same thing (the the person doesn't care about whatever is being discussed). Either version is considered correct.
No, they don't mean the same thing at all.
Actually they do, because like many expressions, it’s an idiom. It does not need to be gramatically correct to express the same meaning. I do find it interesting how grammatical purest get so bent out of shape over other people’s cultural and geographic expressions.
Bent out of shape? Hardly. I just feel sorry for the intellectually and linguistically deficient unwashed masses that try to hide behind idioms.
Reminds me of Major Frank Burns proudly proclaiming he speaks "American".
Actually they do, because like many expressions, it’s an idiom. It does not need to be gramatically correct to express the same meaning. I do find it interesting how grammatical purest get so bent out of shape over other people’s cultural and geographic expressions.
It's not really grammar or cultural/geographic expression. It's using words that mean one thing to express something else. It would be like using the word blue to mean orange.
Or using the word literally to mean figuratively ...
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
Correcting People’s Grammar Is Pretentious, Patronising, and Reeks of Elitism. Here’s Why:
by Debiparna Chakraborty 27 December, 2016
As writers, we're obsessive about grammar because our job depends on it. No matter how red-faced it may leave us when someone else points out our grammatical and syntax errors, at the end of the day we are all here to write well and hone our skills.
Our editors and readers care about grammar. You know who else genuinely cares about grammar? Your English teacher. That's it.
But, just like the person body shaming you doesn't really care about your health, the person pointing out the difference between 'their, there, and they're' to you on an online forum doesn't care about your English-speaking or writing skills either. They're probably just trolling you.
If you are on any social media platform, you must have come across at least a few people who like to proudly call themselves 'grammar nazis,' or 'grammar police,' or 'grammar snobs.' Keeping aside the fact that terms like 'grammar nazi' are offensive, we need to understand where this overzealous behaviour stems from. Language elitism is very real, and many people think it is completely okay to be a grammar bully.
It's one thing to correct someone's grammar if they asked for it or if you are helping them, but that's rarely the case. Most people swinging their 'your and you're' sword in other people's faces often do it just to mock them. There is usually a sense of superiority at play in such conversations, which reeks of elitism.
It is condescending to walk around correcting people's grammar simply because you think you know better. Most of the times, these grammar mistakes don't even matter. People who squabble about the proper usage of words don't realize that along with language, grammar has also evolved over centuries.
To reflect modern usage, even the Oxford Dictionary has updated their definition of the word 'literally,' which is the cause of much grief to many self-proclaimed grammar snobs.
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
For someone who reads and interprets very literally, I found this very confusing. With communication, there is a sender and a receiver. If you want your message to be easily received, it is best to communicate it as best you can. The medium is already imperfect, and so it is best to clarify what you say as best you can. The receiver doesn't necessarily have your background or the same understanding of local phrases and ways of saying things.
A foreign language speaker would have even more difficulty interpreting what you wrote. As constructive criticism only, and trying to impart information with no negative suggestion about your character, intelligence, or any other ability (there are many thousands more that aren't writing) I humbly suggest you have a listen to what has been suggested here. I mean no offense, I am aware many Americans take offense to criticism, but in other cultures criticism is a form of help, and therefore shows deep respect and kindness to those they are trying to help, so please see it in this way.
For someone who reads and interprets very literally, I found this very confusing. With communication, there is a sender and a receiver. If you want your message to be easily received, it is best to communicate it as best you can. The medium is already imperfect, and so it is best to clarify what you say as best you can. The receiver doesn't necessarily have your background or the same understanding of local phrases and ways of saying things.
A foreign language speaker would have even more difficulty interpreting what you wrote. As constructive criticism only, and trying to impart information with no negative suggestion about your character, intelligence, or any other ability (there are many thousands more that aren't writing) I humbly suggest you have a listen to what has been suggested here. I mean no offense, I am aware many Americans take offense to criticism, but in other cultures criticism is a form of help, and therefore shows deep respect and kindness to those they are trying to help, so please see it in this way.
I'm not sure if you are addressing this to me, but I am not the author of the post that was being corrected. That said, All languages have their own dialects, regional slang, etc. This doesn't just apply to english. I doubt anyone reading the OP's post had any problem understanding what was being said. Correcting it was not necessary, asked for, and was actually rude.
Edit: and to avoid confusion in the future, anytime you read or hear someone say "I could care less" or " I couldn't care less", their intent of the meaning is the same; which is essentially "I don't care".
I don't think there is anything wrong with correcting grammar or spelling as long as it's done correctly. Don't do it publicly. Send a private message and don't be condescending or try to sound superior. Let them know you are truly trying to help them out so that the trolling variety of grammar Nazi won't be armed with that again in the future. It's all in the intent and delivery.
I don't think there is anything wrong with correcting grammar or spelling as long as it's done correctly. Don't do it publicly. Send a private message and don't be condescending or try to sound superior. Let them know you are truly trying to help them out so that the trolling variety of grammar Nazi won't be armed with that again in the future. It's all in the intent and delivery.
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
Yeah, and if you loved turnips, you could also care less. If you loved beets, you could care less. That's why it's a meaningless statement if you're implying that you hate turnips and/or beets. There's nothing comparative about saying "I could care less" either.
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
Both versions, Could care less vs. Couldn't care less, are common expressions (in the US at least) that mean the same thing (the the person doesn't care about whatever is being discussed). Either version is considered correct.
Even if you don't accept the saying, it is incorrect to claim 'Could care less' means that you actually care a lot. All it would mean is that there is something in the world that you care for less than the item you are talking about.
For example, assume I hate turnips and beets. I could claim I could care less about turnips, but only because I hate beets more.
Oh man, edit this poll to have "Could care less" replaced with "Couldn't care less" please
Could care less means you care a lot and would therefore blend with the other option
Both versions, Could care less vs. Couldn't care less, are common expressions (in the US at least) that mean the same thing (the the person doesn't care about whatever is being discussed). Either version is considered correct.
Even if you don't accept the saying, it is incorrect to claim 'Could care less' means that you actually care a lot. All it would mean is that there is something in the world that you care for less than the item you are talking about.
For example, assume I hate turnips and beets. I could claim I could care less about turnips, but only because I hate beets more.
I am, please don't give us another for at least a year.
I too have been on the receiving end of the grammar police in a thread recently.
Like I know the difference between "could care less" and "couldn't care less", but when I type, there are many times I think I'm typing what I want to, but then I just accidentally leave off a negative contraction when I meant to include it. Or, I accidentally type a similar-looking word instead of the one I want, e.g. I want to type "is" but I type "if" or "it" instead. Because, I suppose my brain is auto-piloting when I'm typing and a thing here or there slips through the cracks and it is often the things I don't think about when I use them unless I'm stressing them.
Most people aren't thinking about every detail of every thing they say, so things like clitics (read: negative contraction endings) in English can often be glazed over in the process of putting thought to the words one is typing on a screen. Of course, this is why proofreading helps (something I do a ton of which is why almost all of my posts say "edited"), but self-proofreading still has a high chance of missing mistakes, because you yourself know what your intended message is supposed to say so you read what you want to think you wrote.
The point is about grammar police though, you have no idea if the person knows or doesn't know the actual grammatical way. So for you to look at the surface, assume you know, then lecture them about it, sorry but it's pompous. You read the statement, you knew what they meant by context alone which should serve to be enough in most cases.
The only time you need to correct grammar in the open is if the message is nearly entirely unreadable and incomprehensible. To correct grammar in the open otherwise, is to show everyone that you are a bit pretentious and think yourself above the poster.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Comments
I don't mind the character, but give us a break!
No, they don't mean the same thing at all.
she (and surak) briefly appeared in the vault, but have since vanished. It seems probable to me that DB was denied by the actors or their estates to have their likenesses to be used in the game. Esp. considering that either of them would have been better 500th crew in the eyes of most.
I guess she was in TAS, so maybe they could use that version at the very least.
wait, you mean to tell me that using the word "not" causes something to have the opposite meaning!?!? I can't not believe it!
Please no. Do NOT pur her in the honor hall. How would she rate as honorable? Give her a few seasons to prove herself and you can argue the point. For now, there are so many genuinely honorable characters we do not need to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
That said I'd love to see more variety if they're gonna do Disco crew, there are other options besides Burnham...
It doesn’t matter if it’s grammatically correct, it’s an idiom used by many people depending on where they grew up. Give it a rest. You need something more serious to worry about. Especially if it bothers you that much.
Actually they do, because like many expressions, it’s an idiom. It does not need to be gramatically correct to express the same meaning. I do find it interesting how grammatical purest get so bent out of shape over other people’s cultural and geographic expressions.
😉
I had better add this edit before people come after me. Edit: if you are not my daughter nor my student, I don't really care what you do. It is an objective linguistic fact that "could care less" is wrong in this case. It is also an obvious fact that everyone knows what you're saying. This is not a big deal.
- Desert version ... because it is the first time we see her on screen ... in literally the first scene of the new series. (this is a version I've actually wanted since Discovery came out)
- Prisoner version ... because of how events pan out (won't spoil anything for those who have not seen the show).
The 4* versions are actually all meh and I feel highlight the least interesting aspect of the character.
- Two are basically the same character.
- and the third (Tactical) is cookie cutter stuff.
As for more Burnhams ... well, in those 8 episodes she doesn't really change much after the "prologue" stuff ... who knows, maybe her character will develop more but until there are some really interesting developments I'd say the current range of Burnhams cover her well enough (up to episode 8).
I wonder what we're going to get next week. I've got a few Andorians, now, and plenty of Burnham (at least the latest is good for voyages).
I'd like to have another Vorta (Eris!) and a changeling - oddly I don't have any changelings in my crew worth anything!
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I just want a decent Archer for next week. I know this is a "Discovery" mega event, but we have Thelin, we have Shran, we have Shras, we have Tarah. I'm glad for all the Andorian add-ons, but now I want a T'Pau and an Archer. T'Pol would be nice too but I won't hold my breath.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Bent out of shape? Hardly. I just feel sorry for the intellectually and linguistically deficient unwashed masses that try to hide behind idioms.
Reminds me of Major Frank Burns proudly proclaiming he speaks "American".
Hate those uniforms. They look like an olympic sports team.
It's not really grammar or cultural/geographic expression. It's using words that mean one thing to express something else. It would be like using the word blue to mean orange.
Or using the word literally to mean figuratively ...
by Debiparna Chakraborty 27 December, 2016
As writers, we're obsessive about grammar because our job depends on it. No matter how red-faced it may leave us when someone else points out our grammatical and syntax errors, at the end of the day we are all here to write well and hone our skills.
Our editors and readers care about grammar. You know who else genuinely cares about grammar? Your English teacher. That's it.
But, just like the person body shaming you doesn't really care about your health, the person pointing out the difference between 'their, there, and they're' to you on an online forum doesn't care about your English-speaking or writing skills either. They're probably just trolling you.
If you are on any social media platform, you must have come across at least a few people who like to proudly call themselves 'grammar nazis,' or 'grammar police,' or 'grammar snobs.' Keeping aside the fact that terms like 'grammar nazi' are offensive, we need to understand where this overzealous behaviour stems from. Language elitism is very real, and many people think it is completely okay to be a grammar bully.
It's one thing to correct someone's grammar if they asked for it or if you are helping them, but that's rarely the case. Most people swinging their 'your and you're' sword in other people's faces often do it just to mock them. There is usually a sense of superiority at play in such conversations, which reeks of elitism.
It is condescending to walk around correcting people's grammar simply because you think you know better. Most of the times, these grammar mistakes don't even matter. People who squabble about the proper usage of words don't realize that along with language, grammar has also evolved over centuries.
To reflect modern usage, even the Oxford Dictionary has updated their definition of the word 'literally,' which is the cause of much grief to many self-proclaimed grammar snobs.
A foreign language speaker would have even more difficulty interpreting what you wrote. As constructive criticism only, and trying to impart information with no negative suggestion about your character, intelligence, or any other ability (there are many thousands more that aren't writing) I humbly suggest you have a listen to what has been suggested here. I mean no offense, I am aware many Americans take offense to criticism, but in other cultures criticism is a form of help, and therefore shows deep respect and kindness to those they are trying to help, so please see it in this way.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I'm not sure if you are addressing this to me, but I am not the author of the post that was being corrected. That said, All languages have their own dialects, regional slang, etc. This doesn't just apply to english. I doubt anyone reading the OP's post had any problem understanding what was being said. Correcting it was not necessary, asked for, and was actually rude.
Edit: and to avoid confusion in the future, anytime you read or hear someone say "I could care less" or " I couldn't care less", their intent of the meaning is the same; which is essentially "I don't care".
Well said.
An Olympic sports team that won a bunch of medals! U-F-P! U-F-P! U-F-P!
Like I know the difference between "could care less" and "couldn't care less", but when I type, there are many times I think I'm typing what I want to, but then I just accidentally leave off a negative contraction when I meant to include it. Or, I accidentally type a similar-looking word instead of the one I want, e.g. I want to type "is" but I type "if" or "it" instead. Because, I suppose my brain is auto-piloting when I'm typing and a thing here or there slips through the cracks and it is often the things I don't think about when I use them unless I'm stressing them.
Most people aren't thinking about every detail of every thing they say, so things like clitics (read: negative contraction endings) in English can often be glazed over in the process of putting thought to the words one is typing on a screen. Of course, this is why proofreading helps (something I do a ton of which is why almost all of my posts say "edited"), but self-proofreading still has a high chance of missing mistakes, because you yourself know what your intended message is supposed to say so you read what you want to think you wrote.
The point is about grammar police though, you have no idea if the person knows or doesn't know the actual grammatical way. So for you to look at the surface, assume you know, then lecture them about it, sorry but it's pompous. You read the statement, you knew what they meant by context alone which should serve to be enough in most cases.
The only time you need to correct grammar in the open is if the message is nearly entirely unreadable and incomprehensible. To correct grammar in the open otherwise, is to show everyone that you are a bit pretentious and think yourself above the poster.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.