Yes it is allowed , it can be used to add more specific attention to one specific area of New York City that has been affected.

Say you were writing about COVID-19 and theatres in New York.

That sentence would be perfect to show specifically how COVID-19 has impacted theatres.

The sentence is both grammatical and acceptable.

I agree that it may seem redundant without context.

If New York City was plagued, so (presumably) were New York City's theaters, pizza parlors, offices, recreation centres, brothels, etc.

However, if the article is specifically about theaters in NYC, it adds focus.

It specifies that we are not analyzing the effect of COVID-19 on all of New York City.

It is the theaters that are relevant to the article.

Hope this helps!

If you just say, "COVID-19 plagued New York City," then maybe all the theaters were okay.

(It's extremely unlikely, but possible.)

Maybe they were okay, and maybe they were plagued.

That sentence doesn't tell you.

It just tells you that the city was plagued, but it doesn't tell you which part or parts of the city.

However if you say, "COVID-19 plagued New York City and its many theaters," then theaters definitely were plagued.

However, let's look at another sentence:

The theaters in New York City were plagued, and in New York City, the theaters were plagued.

This sentence is bad style.

It is very redundant.

It sounds kind of stupid.

However English grammar does allow this.

It is not a grammatical problem, but a problem with style.

Geographically, the theaters might be considered part of the city, but in pure logic they are not (and you're talking about logic).

Compare with "Gun crime plagues New York City".

You're making an inference that a disease that plagues the city also plagues its theaters, and you're treating the statement as redundant because you think the reader is capable of making the same inference.

You might be right; but it's an inference that requires knowledge of how diseases work, rather than relying on pure logic.

There are a few things to consider here.

Firstly, grammar doesn't generally concern itself with the meaning of a sentence.

There is a famous example by Noam Chomsky of a sentence which is grammatically correct , but nonetheless nonsensical in multiple ways: colorless green ideas sleep furiously .

So the sentence you give is grammatically correct because it is of the form "[noun phrase] plagued [noun phrase] and [noun phrase]", which is allowed by the grammar of English.

Secondly, being redundant doesn't make something nonsensical .

Nonsense would imply that the two parts of the sentence contradict each other, not just that one of them was unnecessary.

So the sentence is not nonsensical either.

Thirdly, if a sentence is technically redundant , that doesn't necessarily mean it is bad style .

Repetition and redundancy are often used as literary or rhetorical devices, e.g. to emphasise a point.

In this example, it is used to establish context, first to the city, and then to "zoom in" to the city's theaters.

Finally, it's worth knowing that the specific structure used in this example, "X and its Y", is very common, and "[city] and its many [item]s" is almost a cliché in its own right.

This is not redundant.

You might think it is obvious since New York City has many theaters that they were also plagued by COVID-19, but this assumes something about the nature of theaters and of COVID-19.

To see that it is not redundant, compare the following ostensibly similar (but false) statement.

plagued New York City and its many lampposts.

Of course, as others have said, even if it were logically redundant it would not be ungrammatical and might be a useful way of adding emphasis.

As a point of contrast to other answers, I might point out that while English is pretty flexible in this case, the OP has a point that a strict reading may not understand elaboration or redundancy, but can imply a relationship between the theaters and, in this case, being "plagued".

So while the other answers are reasonable that a native speaker might comfortably read the sentence as meaning "including" : COVID-19

plagued New York City and its many theaters. ==

plagued New York City, including its many theaters. .

. . I would agree that if we had such a sentence about an unfamiliar subject, a native speaker might well take the sentence to imply "because of" : Bedbugs infested Gotham City and its many cramped high-rises. ==

> Bedbugs infested Gotham City (at least in part) because of its many cramped high-rises.

I don't think it breaks any grammar rules, not even rules of logic (where "A and A" is a correct expression).

However, most people would hopefully agree that there are better ways to imply that theatres had a significant role to play in this case.

I would suggest COVID-19

plagued New York City with its many theaters.

I think it makes sense if you add an implied word, "hence" COVID-19 plagued New York City and [hence, ] its many theaters.

If you just said "COVID-19 plagued New York City's theaters", the audience would be wondering why just the theaters.

This is a convenient way to get to the point you're trying to make ("theaters were affected") by starting from a fact ("New York City was affected"), with the link between them being so obvious (New York's theaters are in New York) that it's not worth spending any words on.

Question: For example:   COVID-19 plagued New York City and its many theaters.   I am wondering if "and its many theaters" makes sense, because it's included in "New York City". Is this allowed in English? Because to me it's already implied and thus it's nonsensical.

Is redundant logic ungrammatical?

Yes it is allowed , it can be used to add more specific attention to one specific area of New York City that has been affected.  Repetition and redundancy are often used as literary or rhetorical devices, e.g. to emphasise a point.

The sentence maybe bad style but it is both grammatical and logical.


Either of the ways that you show, but if you are spelling them as they are said, this is consistent: "zero point one percent" (written 0.1%) "one thousandth".

(written 1/1000 or 0.001)

You can also say "one part per thousand" (1 PPT).

If you want a term similar to percent, but ten times smaller, it's per mille , denoted by ‰ sign.

So, 0.1%=1‰.

This question is part math, part language and part pronunciation.

You can say (pronounce) any of the following, because they are mathematically the same: A thousandth

One one-thousandth One out of a thousand .1 percent ("point one percent" or "one one-tenth of a percent") per thousand or one per thousand Others have mentioned 'per mille.'

That is not used in American English in my experience; it's based on French 'mille' meaning 'one thousand' (1,000).

That's a thousandth of something.

"1/100" is not one percent.

It's, one over one hundred .

"1⁄1000" is, one over one thousand.

Your question is, how do you say " .001 " and your second offering is correct : one thousandth .

You can also say, point zero zero one . "0.1%" you can omit the zero and just say, point one percent .

You can't say "one part per thousand" because we don't have the context of there being "parts".

Mathematical formulas can be vocalized (spoken aloud).

The vocalization system for formulas has to be learned, and is dependent on the underlying natural language.

For example, when using English, the expression "ƒ(x)" is conventionally pronounced "eff of eks", where the insertion of the preposition "of" is not suggested by the notation per se.

The expression " d y d x {\displaystyle {\tfrac {dy}{dx}}} \tfrac{dy}{dx}", on the other hand, is commonly vocalized like "dee-why-dee-eks", with complete omission of the fraction bar, in other contexts often pronounced "over" .

The book title

Why does E = mc2?

is said aloud as Why does ee equal em see-squared?.

Language of mathematics

As a fraction, other answers have cover that well.

When one want to express “1⁄1000” like some percentage, one could say as below and even write using a single Unicode character.

Write as 0.1% and say "one tenth (of a) percent".

(Below are useful in select conversations - uncommon in general) Write as 1‰ and say "one per mille".

Write as 10‱ and say "ten per ten thousand".

Hmmm, too much like @Ruslan good answer.

Making it wiki.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/32004/chux - Reinstate Monica

An informal way to say it is "One in a thousand".

This kind of speech implies that it is either an estimate or intended as an exaggeration.

For a more exact number like 42/1000, "fourty-two out of a thousand" might be interpreted by the listener to be less precise than "fourty-two one-thousandths".

Speaking, I would say 'a thousandth' or 'a tenth of a percent'.

Using 'a' rather than 'one' in saying it seems nicer.

Further, in exposition, 'a' is an indefinite article, which indicates the speaker does not know the identity of the noun, in this case the thousandth in particular.

If you were speaking of a particular thousandth, perhaps the weight of sand which broke the camel's back then we would want to indicate we know that particular unit by using the definite article 'the' to say 'the thousandth pound of sand that broke the camel's back'.

Finally, if the unit of measure is the inch, a thousandth may be referred to as 'a thou' or 'a mil'.

Question: In everyday language, people call "1/100" 1 percent. How do I say "1⁄1000"?    O point one percent  1 thousandth   or something else?

How do I say "1/1000"?

Speaking, I would say 'a thousandth' or 'a tenth of a percent'.  : You can also say "one part per thousand" (1 PPT) or you can say (pronounce) any of the following, because they are mathematically the same:   A thousandth

The following options are possible: "a thousandth", "one in a thousand", "one out of a thousand" and "one part per thousand".


Articles belong to a group of words called " determiners ".

Besides articles, there are other determiners in the English language, and "no" is a determiner too.

Let me quote from BBC: No is a determiner expressing quantity like 'all', 'every', 'many', 'some', 'any', 'each', 'either', 'one', 'another' and is used before singular and plural nouns.

It is similar in meaning to ' not a ' or 'not any' and is often our preferred choice if we want to give emphasis to what we are saying.

A singular countable noun like car should have some determiner before it, and no suits the purpose.

No additional determiner is required.

Indeed, in some cases we do combine not with a

, I'm not sure what the grammar says about this.

"I have not a car" sound quaint and wrong in modern English.

Maybe several hundred years ago it was more acceptable?

In certain constructions not a + singular count noun certainly remains in use: Not a shirt on my back, Not a penny to my name, Lord, I can't go back home this way.

(" 500 miles ", a song)

I don't recall the rule explaining this.

"A" is like saying "one": I have a car

I have one car Logically then, saying "no" is like saying "zero": I have no car

I have zero cars.

Therefore, there is no need for an article.

"Not" is neither a determiner nor an article, so saying "I haven't a car" is fine as it is (although one is more likely to say "I don't have a car" or, for Americans, "I haven't got a car").

The indefinite article a/an historically originates simply as an unstressed version of the numeral one.

Some linguists have even argued that semantically, what is called the "indefinite article" is still just a specialized numeral.

And the "negative quantifiers" none and no historically originate from fusion of a negative adverb ne (not used anymore as an independent word) and the numeral one (or indefinite article a/an ).

The n sound at the end was lost when a following noun was present, as with the word mine/my.

There is no article after

no

in I have no car because in syntax, no behaves like it contains the indefinite article already.

In British English, "I haven't got a car" is common usage (Americans would be more likely to say "I don't have a car").

"I have no car" is also quite acceptable.

Why doesn't "I have not

a car" work?

It's confused by the fact that "have" is used as both as an auxiliary verb ("I have seen her") and to mean "own" or "possess"

("I have a car").

But the negative "have not", is only ever used as an auxiliary.

In any case, we don't normally negate a verb by adding "not".

We don't say "I walk not to work": it's clear what it means, but it's not idiomatic; we say instead "I don't walk to work".

As for the absence of an article, in the sentence "I have no car", the word "no" is essentially performing the same grammatical function as "a" in "

I have a car".

"a" means one,

"no" means zero, you don't want to say "one" and "zero" because they contradict each other.

But perhaps I'm appealing too much to logic; idioms often defy logic.

Afterthought :

what about " I haven't a clue. "?

Not to mention " I haven't the faintest idea. "?

I think we just have to dismiss those as irregular.

I have no car.

[no ---> adjective]

I have no a car.

[Two determiners : 'no' & 'a' cannot be used together.]

I have not a car.

I don't have a car.

I haven't got a car.[not ---> adverb]

"I have no car" is more likely to be used to negate an unjustified assumption, such as "Do you drive a 4x4?", or "Would you drive me to the airport?".

Question: Examples. "I have  no  car", "I have  no  TV". BUT "I have  not a  car"  There was a thread on it, but the answers were pretty superficial to say the least and only based on someone's opinion. I read a whole book (by Seonaid Beckwith) about articles and there is not a single word about that, which is amazing to me. Does anybody actually know the rule? Please, no opinions :)

Why is there no article after "no" in "I have no car"

In  I have no car , because in syntax,  no  behaves like it contains the indefinite article already.  Two determiners : 'no' & 'a' cannot be used together.

Two determiners are never used together as an additional determiner is not required.


2x4 would be said: "Two by Four" https://www.thespruce.com/dimensional-lumber-definition-1821735

To add to bhundven's excellent and correct answer, the word "by" is spoken in English in other contexts when the "x" is written.

For instance, you may hear of a 6x6 maze ("six by six maze"), or a 4x4 magic square ("four by four magic square"), or a room measuring 12 feet x 10 feet ("twelve feet by ten feet").

(There's also a class of sport utility vehicle called a 4x4 ["four by four"] because it has four wheels and four-wheel drive.)

x , Symbol.

5: (used between figures indicating dimensions) by : 3″ × 4″ (read: “three by four inches”); 3″ × 4″ × 5″

(read: “three by four by five inches”). –

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/x See also, display resolution (e.g. 1920 × 1080) Geometric dimension of an object, such as noting that a room is 10 feet × 12 feet in area, where it is usually read as "by" (for example: "10 feet by 12 feet")

The lower-case Latin letter x is sometimes used in place of the multiplication sign.

This is considered incorrect in mathematical writing {because you're supposed to use a Unicode glyph }.

– Multiplication sign

I am a carpenter by trade and you would say 2 by 4 - in the old days the 2x4 would actually be 2" x 4" because they did not plane anything - now they plane the wood to 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 so basically they still hang onto the original size

It is pronounced "two by four" or "tuba four" as supercat suggested; I think I say it both ways myself.

@Mazura is correct about the actual size which probably results from the line upon which the saw blade centers, two inches in one direction and four inches in the other.

The blade obviously is wider than the line, which means the actual dimension is less than what is stated.

I agree that is somewhat annoying.

Also, we Americans still surprisingly cling to the English system of measurement, which they have abandoned.

Personally, I prefer metric.

Question: Recently, I found "2x4" as a weapon in a game I played.  I found that it's a common standard for  lumber board .  I tried to pronounce it as "two multiplies four" but it feels really weird.  How should I pronounce this word?

How do you pronounce 2×4 (board)

The word "by" is spoken in English in other contexts when the "x" is written. For instance, you may hear of a 6x6 maze ("six by six maze"), or a 4x4 magic square ("four by four magic square"), or a room measuring 12 feet x 10 feet ("twelve feet by ten feet").   There's also a class of sport utility vehicle called a 4x4 ["four by four"] because it has four wheels and four-wheel drive.

In this sentence, the "x" stands for "by" but it can also represent the multiplication sign.


The yellow squared are "adjacent" to the red square.

From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent Definition of adjacent1a:

not distant : NEARBY the city and adjacent suburbsb: having a common endpoint or border adjacent lots adjacent sides of a trianglec: immediately preceding or following In this case "b" is the relevant definition, "having a common endpoint or border".

In this particular case, I would probably say, "The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting in one of the four adjacent seats."

Saying "the four adjacent seats" makes the sentence unambiguous, and it avoids using the word "orthogonally", which is a technical term that I wouldn't expect every native speaker to know.

They are orthogonally adjacent to the red square.

The green squares at the corners of the red square are diagonally adjacent .

If you want to be very general and elicit a subsequent barrage of clarifying questions from your intended audience about the inclusion of the diagonally adjacent squares, you could say they border or are adjacent to the red square.

You could use a number of words including: adjacent

surrounding Adjacent would be my preference - note that the word has a more specific meaning in mathematics, but in English grammar can mean "next to" in any direction , including to the sides, in front or behind.

On its own, "next to" does tend to mean to the left or right sides.

Your suggestion of "encircling" doesn't sound quite right as the pattern of the chairs in your image is not a circle, which is is what it specifically means - to form a circle around.

"Surrounding" is synonymous with "encircling", but does not specifically mean the shape of a circle.

"One seat away from Mark" also identifies the seats on each side, and in front and back.

It does not exclude the diagonally adjacent seats.

Nobody has come out and said it yet, so I will.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with "next".

The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting next to him.

This is perfectly normal, acceptable, every-day English that will be perfectly understood and will not seem awkward or weird at all.

It applies perfectly well to the seats ahead and behind as much as it does to the ones to the sides.

Without the drawing, a speaker may also consider the four corner desks also to be "next" to the central one, but this is not really important.

I think the rest of the answers here are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

Immediate You could say that those positions are immediately surrounding the central point If we look at the definitions for " Immediate ", we can see: Having no object or space intervening; nearest or next and Having a direct bearing

This becomes more clear if we remove the space from between the objects in the image.

The green objects are obstructing the yellow objects.

In other words, there is no direct, unobstructed path from the red square to any of the yellow ones.

Another term would be " contiguous ": Definition of contiguous 1: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point "the 48 contiguous states"

Question: Let's say you are in a classroom. You are the red square. What to call the position of the yellow seats in relation to you?  I thought of using "next," but I think that doesn't apply to the seats in front and behind the red square.  I also thought of "encircling," but that would include the green squares on the corners.  Example sentence:   The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting __

What do you call this nearby position?

You could use a number of words including:   adjacent, surrounding   Adjacent  would be my preference - note that the word has a more specific meaning in mathematics, but in English grammar can mean "next to" in  any direction , including to the sides, in front or behind.

The following are all suitable options: "contiguous", "next to", "immediately surrounding", "adjacent", "orthogonally adjacent", "diagonally adjacent", "border" — "encircle" is a less likely option.


When hosting a dinner party you pour drinks for your guests.

After your guests leave, you pour out the liquid in the drinking glasses before placing them in the dishwasher.

Pour drinks generally means to fill up the glass.

Pour out drinks generally means to empty unconsumed liquid from drinking glasses.

One would not say pour out drinks if they were filling glasses.

Serve out is not something that is said.

It's the same concept as the difference between throw and throw out :

I threw the ball.

The ball went through the air and is now some distance from me.

I threw out the ball.

The ball is now in the trash.

Pour out typically means you are discarding a liquid, typically by pouring it down the drain or on the ground.

Pour out can also less commonly be used to mean "pour as part of preparation", e.g. Pour out six cups of sugar for the cakes .

As a NZ English speaker, I'd understand "pour out" to mean "tip out" or "dispose of".

But there's a less common meaning where staff or hosts "pour out" drinks and line them up for collection.

For example: Confusing?

Yes, but the circumstances should tell you what is meant.

She poured out the drinks for her guests

She poured drinks for her guests

In that example above, both versions make perfect sense and mean that drinks were served.

Note the article “the“ which precedes "drinks" in the first version.

Under “pour”, Lexico's entry says pour 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Cause (a liquid) to flow from a container in a steady stream.

‘she poured a little whisky into a glass’ ‘Mats are provided, food is served upon plates and drink is poured into cups.’

1.2 [with object] Prepare and serve (a drink) ‘he poured a cup of coffee’ ‘

Harry poured her a drink’ ‘Guests poured their own drinks, wrote their own bills and enjoyed great food and live jazz sessions.’

Googling “pour out the drinks”, produced the following quotes: 1.

Then, sit back, pour out the drinks, and sample the delights of Tapas - Spanish-style.

Quick and Easy Tapas by Silvana Franco

In a Tweet by the makers of Heineken, 2.

Half time!

Let's pour out the drinks and get ready to

#ChampionTheMatch #MCFCB From a book entitled Barcraft: Bar and Alcoholic Beverage Service […] a round of drinks to be repeated, always check that you have remembered it correctly or ask for the order to be repeated before you start to pour out the drinks .

As you poured out the drinks for me I felt your hooks sink right into me

And I knew you were my destiny Already Over Me composed by Keith Richards and Mick Jagger

Bill had poured out the drinks.

“That's an awfully big shot,” Nick said.

“Not for us, Wemedge,” Bill said.

“What'll we drink to?”

Nick asked, holding up the glass.

The Three Day Blow by Ernest Hemingway

She looked at him curiously before smiling and pouring out the drinks .

“Can I have five tequila shots as well,” Simon then added, in a deadpan voice.

Baring

All Down Under: The East Coast Road Trip While he was pouring out the drinks, he spoke to him.

“I hope you don't think I'm rude for asking, but do you come from West Africa?'

Valley of Diamonds “pouring out glasses” reveals Behind the counter, two waiters with a piece of chalk behind their ear were busy pouring out glasses of wine from the neighboring wineries.

The bars are full of people drinking what can only be described as the worst beer to hit the taps since people started pouring out glasses of Bud Light in 1876.

Tired of wasting your time on pouring out glasses of water again and again?

That first year, Logan and I raised $600 pouring out glasses of lemonade to thirsty ministers.

“poured the [something] out” When we opened the flask and poured the drinks out

they were still ice cold, as if they had just been pulled out of the fridge!

Using a tap the employee poured the wine out of a tap from a keg and into a growler, which Clements thought was a pretty cool concept.

Yes.

" I immediately took up the decanter (which was on the table,) in my right hand, and the glass in my left - I poured the wine out , and handed it over to him, keeping my eye on the glass to avoid spilling it; he had approached nearer the table and nearer to me.

I was leaning over the table, handing the glass towards him; "You couldn't have poured the beer out of the glass faster than he drank it."

In none of the cited examples above does “pour out”

mean to throw away liquid or to pay homage to a dead person.

It's all about context.

English is a very flexible language and the OP, and other learners too, need to realise there is rarely one ‘correct’ way to express anything, there can be several different ways of saying the same thing.

I would say that 'pour drinks' and 'pour out' have slightly different usages. '

Pour drinks' has a more specific sense of serving somebody a beverage by pouring a drink into their glass. '

Pour out' is a more generic phrase for pouring any liquid out of a container.

It is often seen in the form 'pour ... out'.

Examples: Please pour drinks for the guests every 20 minutes.

I poured the paint out into the tray and prepared the brush.

In addition to all of these good answers I have noticed the term " pour one out for XXX " in a lot of American movies, where a toast is made to a dead person, sometimes accompanied with pouring a drink onto the ground and/or grave of a deceased person.

I don't recall where I heard it, but you can see it in Grosse Pointe Blank, etc.

Question: Could you tell me if there is any difference between  pour drinks  and  pour out drinks ? For example:   Could you  pour  ( out ) drinks while I serve the snacks

Is there any difference between "pour drinks" and "pour out drinks"?

When hosting a dinner party you  pour drinks  for your guests.  Pour out drinks  generally means to empty unconsumed liquid from drinking glasses.  One would not say  pour out drinks  if they were filling glasses.  Pour out  can also less commonly be used to mean "pour as part of preparation", e.g.  Pour out six cups of sugar for the cakes .

“Pour" means "to pour the drinks into a container". "Pour out" means "to discard". "Pour out" is less commonly used to mean "pour" in this context.


I think the word "just" here means something like "simply".

The shirt is saying something like, "This is a simple situation and you must follow this simple instruction:

do not disturb me.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

Don't ask me why.

Simply do not disturb me."

"Just don't" is often used as a response to the question (or some variation of) "Why not?":

Dad: Don't touch that Kid:

Why not?

Dad: Just don't.

In your example, they're shutting down the question

"Why can't I disturb you?", "What are you doing?",

etc.. before you have the chance to ask it, implying they are expecting you to ask it.

Dad: Don't touch that Kid: - Dad

: Just don't.

It's quite common, so much so that it has made it's way into one-way conversation for comedic effect, hence the t-shirt print.

Just , in this context, is more of an indication that there may be repercussions if you do not heed the previous warning.

It is almost like saying “Don’t disturb me.

Or, else!”

It is almost, but not quite, a veiled threat.

I vaguely suspect this is a pun of sorts on the Nike slogan "Just do it".

Since in the context of Nike's advertising "just do it" means "do it without even thinking about it", the opposite phrase "just don't" would mean "don't even think about doing it".

It means "only" or "simply".

However, the context is important.

Here is a typical case where an imperative sentence is used with "just": Dad: Jimmy, mow the lawn.

Jimmy:

But daaaaaaaaaaad, I don't want to mow the lawn!

Dad:

I'll get ice cream if you mow the lawn.

Jimmy:

But I'm playing a game!

Dad: Mow the lawn now or I'll give you time out!

Jimmy:

No! Please don't!

Dad: Stop complaining and just mow the lawn!

In this argument, it means: The only thing you should do is mow the lawn.

You should not complain, or argue, or do anything else.

Obviously, it also conveys anger or frustration.

Compare with a more common use of "just": Do you want ketchup or mayo or garlic yoghurt?

Just ketchup, thanks.

Here it means: The only thing I want is ketchup.

I do not want mayo, or garlic yoghurt, or anything else.

In the argument context, it can also be seen as "simply". "

Simply mow the lawn, without extra complications like complaining or arguing."

The shirt is similar to the argument, except much shorter, and perhaps with less anger and more frustration.

Dad: Don't open the door.

Jimmy:

But daaaad, I want to play outside!

Dad

: Just don't open it!

Mad scientist: Don't press the button.

Jimmy:

But it's shiny and red!

I want to press it!

Mad scientist: Just don't press it!

In this case, nobody is complaining about being told "do not disturb" - obviously, since it's a T-shirt and not a two-way conversation.

The writer is acting as if someone did, anyway.

It's like a pre-emptive answer, because the writer is feeling especially frustrated and is expecting someone to complain: Mom: Don't eat the cookies.

Just don't!

Jimmy:

But - Mom

: I said, "just don't!"

Last time you ate all the cookies and we had to cancel the family picnic!

Like @tanner-swett's answer, I believe "just" should be interpreted to mean "simply".

But here's a bit more of an unpack: "Do not disturb.

Just don't.

I want you to refrain from disturbing me.

I want this very very much.

No matter what the situation may be, no matter who is in peril or what has happened, do not disturb me.

You do not need to think about anything else.

The order is simple.

It is three words.

You do not need to make it more complicated than that by trying to think of an exception.

Simply this: do not disturb.

Without Further Explanation

Aside from the other answers suggesting "Simply" and "Only" as possible synonyms.

In this sort of context, the word Just is being used to emphasise that there will be no justification or explanation.

An authority figure saying "Just do it" is allowing no argument.

In the context of the T-shirt, they're saying not to bother them, and that they don't want to explain what will happen if you do.

In sentences like this, the phrase is usually fully functional without the word "

Just"It's similar to spelling out the word "Period" on the end of a sentence to emphasise it and indicate that there's nothing more to say.

"I will not stand for this nonsense!

you're wrong.

Period!"

"Do not Disturb.

Don't" It short-circuits the following question

, someone asking why they shouldn't disturb you, by preemptively answering it.

"Just" here has the meaning "only".

As the previous statement was an order it is saying that that the requirement is to obey the order without doing anything else (like discussion, delay, etc).

It can simply mean no reasons for not disturbing will be given, and you are expected to take the imperative utterance to be sufficient with no further justification.

Question: It was written on a T-shirt: "Do not disturb. Just don't." What does "just" mean here? Does it mean that all I want is that you don't disturb?  There is a difference of opinion between the respondents. What is the opinion of someone whose mother tongue is English?

What does the word "just" mean in this context?

Here, the word "just" means something like "simply".  There are no exceptions to this rule.

I think the word "just" here means something like "simply".


Yes, your sentence is correct.

How can a single photon be detected?

The indefinite article "a" tells me you want to know how to detect a photon, any photon, not a specific one.

If you wanted to detect a specific photon, you would have used the definite article "the."

The word "single" tells me you want to know how to detect only one photon, not more than one.

Thus, you can see that both the words "a" and "single" are needed to clearly state your question.

To repeat what the other answers have already said, yes, your example sentence is perfectly grammatical and idiomatic.

For that matter, so are all of these sentences as well:

How can one single photon be detected?

How can the single photon [emitted by some specific source] be detected?

How can single photons be detected? or even:

How can two single photons be detected [by the same detector]?

"A" in English is an indefinite article — basically an obligatory feature of English grammar that carries very little meaning , other than signifying that the following noun phrase refers to some single but indeterminate thing whose identity is not assumed to be known by the reader.

In English, noun phrases involving singular countable nouns

must (almost) always start with a determiner .

While there are many such determiners (such as numerals, demonstratives, possessives, interrogatives, etc.)

with different meanings, the definite article "the" and the indefinite article "a" / "an" serve as generic neutral determiners that can (and usually must!) be used when no other determiner is appropriate.

"Single", meanwhile, is an adjective that refers to something being or occurring alone, apart from other similar things or events.

It is not a determiner, so e.g.

*"single photon" is not a complete English noun phrase — it needs a determiner like " a single photon", " the single photon", " this single photon" or even " no single photon".

The adjective "single" can also be applied to plural nouns, as in "single photons", to signify that all of the many things being referred to are distinct and separated from each other.

Thus, for example, A single-photon detector can detect single photons and send a signal when each one is detected, allowing the number of photons received by the detector to be counted. is a perfectly idiomatic (and factual!)

English sentence.

Basically, the words "a" and "single" in the phrase "a single photon" have completely different grammatical roles, and also quite little semantic overlap.

The article "a" cannot be removed from the phrase at all without making it ungrammatical, unless it is replaced by some other determiner (or unless the phrase is made plural instead).

Meanwhile, the adjective "single" serves to emphasize that the photon is to be detected in isolation, separately from other photons, and removing it would change the meaning of the sentence.

In particular, a valid answer to the question: How can a photon be detected? would simply be "with any camera, or with the human eye; they all detect light, which is made up of photons."

But that's clearly not the question you wanted to ask.

Short answer:

Yes.

You COULD say simply, "Can a photon be detected?"

But adding the word "single" makes it clear that you are talking about detecting just one proton.

One could argue that this is redundant, as the word "a" already indicates you are talking about only one.

But not all redundancy is bad.

Sometimes it's very helpful for emphasis or to make the meaning clear.

Your question sentence: How can a single photon be detected? looks good.

If you use a singular countable none first time or in general you should use article "a".

And it does not interferes with "single".

I totally agree with Jay - your construction "a single photon"

makes the meaning clear.

We cannot remove the article a : *How can single photon be detected? is not grammatical.

The a is required grammatically regardless of the semantic overlap between a and single .

What is not grammatical is using both a and a number, such as one : *

How can a one photon be detected?

You might be thinking that since this is faulty, substituting single for one should still be faulty.

But single is not in the same special lexical category as one .

Furthermore, it doesn't always mean the same thing: it means one in not a single man came forward , but it means unmarried in he remained a single man all his life .

single is not an indicator of plurality; it's an adjective.

Note that single photons is grammatical, just like single women .

But one photons and one women isn't!

How can single photons be detected?

How can one photons be detected?

*A single tree gave shade from the sun.---Longman*

They won the game by a single point.----Longman**We ought to be able to complete the work in a single day.--Macmillan

Question: I wrote this sentence:   How can a single photon be detected?   I think it could mean one of the photons while emphasizing its singleness.  But I feel something's wrong with it because a and single are the same meaning and redundant.  Is the sentence idiomatic?

Could 'a' and 'single' be used together?

The article "a" cannot be removed from the phrase at all without making it ungrammatical, unless it is replaced by some other determiner (or unless the phrase is made plural instead).

“a" and "single" can be used together and would be ungrammatical without both.


proverbial = goes beyond its first meaning Merriam Webster: Definition of proverbial1: of, relating to, or resembling a proverb2: that has become a proverb or byword : commonly spoken of the proverbial smoking gun aka well-known or familiar, too.

No, there is no specific "proverb" associated with the middle finger.

However, the middle finger gesture as an insult is well known.

This is expressed as: to give someone the finger.

Isn't it more suitable to say:

We've given the figurative/metaphoric middle finger to the society?

That's exactly the meaning of the phrase, yes.

Typically 'proverbial' in this sense is used to refer to an actual well-known proverb or idiom.

The M-W definition 1: of, relating to, or resembling a proverb2: that has become a proverb or byword : commonly spoken of Gives a great example: 'the proverbial smoking gun'.

This doesn't refer to any actual proverb, rather, the well-known idiom 'smoking gun'.

The usage in your example is odd in that they use 'proverbial' to refer neither to a specific proverb nor to a common idiomatic expression.

I'd almost go so far as to call it wrong.

You could certainly replace proverbial in the original sentence with metaphorical or figurative and preserve most of the meaning.

Use of "proverbial" here does two things though - as well as signifying the sentence isn't meant literally, it's also calling out the fact that "giving someone the (middle) finger" is a colloquial phrase that is often used non-literally like this.

A proverb is an idiom, metaphor, or witty saying that is well known and in general use.

On the other hand, The Book of Proverbs is a collection of common sense wisdom and advice located in the Bible.

The middle finger in the US and some other countries is a well known and commonly used (amongst some) obscene gesture meant as a pro-verb meant to silently replace the verb-like, action phrase, “GO FORNICATE YOURSELF!!”

It is synonymous to placing the thumb between the middle and the ring finger in some countries.

Or, giving the peace sign (index and middle finger extended only) with the back of the hand facing the intended recipient.

Or, thrusting the fist upward and stopping the motion with the opposite hand against the inside of the elbow.

Since the middle finger is well known and in general use, it is proverbial.

In this example, the choice of "proverbial" seems to employ irony - there are no proverbs (to my knowledge) that refer to the rude hand gesture in question, and it gives the quote a dark humor.

"Figurative" or "metaphorical" would be a more literal choice, but would remove the ironic flavor.

Per M-W , "proverbial" doesn't necessarily need to be used to refer to a term's use in a proverb; it can also be used to refer to use in an idiom.

It is to be dramatic One way to say it would be: After careful analysis and consideration of all the various factors involved we have agreed to come to the general conclusion that we do not think there is reasonable merit to the idea.

eh It reads better ( to some ) and has more effect (again to some ) as

We gave it the proverbial middle finger !!! because of the terseness and also the image and subsequent thoughts it brings up - ('f' you, 'screw you'

is the language behind middle finger often.

The appropriateness of it will depend on the social scene and settings.

Maybe ok for a night out party.

less so for a work meeting ;)

The speaker wants to indicate that they are conscious that "giving the middle finger to the society" is a somewhat cliched figure of speech.

Adding "proverbial" to "middle finger" is just an arch way to acknowledge that it's a somewhat shopworn expression.

"Proverbial" here means something closer to "hackneyed", rather than that there is a literal proverb about giving people the middle finger.

The association comes from the fact that many proverbs become trite through overuse.

Question: I read the following line on a certain book:   We've given the proverbial middle finger to the society   I know that proverbial means something to do with a proverb. But, how the middle finger has anything to do with proverbs? Isn't it more suitable to say:   We've given the figurative/metaphoric middle finger to the society?   Is there any famous proverb that involves giving the middle finger to the society in English.  Sorry about the language, but I really need to know.

What does "the proverbial middle finger" mean?

Use of "proverbial" here does two things though - as well as signifying the sentence isn't meant literally, it's also calling out the fact that "giving someone the (middle) finger" is a colloquial phrase that is often used non-literally like this. Adding "proverbial" to "middle finger" is just an arch way to acknowledge that it's a somewhat shop-worn expression.

The use of "proverbial" signifies it is a colloquial phrase and a shopworn expression.


"Senior member" is the better choice, unless you're deliberately using it in a joking way.

Although it's technically true that the user's account is older than yours, "elder" is generally used in a more narrow sense to describe someone's actual, real-life age, while "senior" is much more commonly used in this context and doesn't necessarily indicate an age difference.

"Experienced user" or "veteran user" might also be good choices, depending on the exact tone you're going for.

Edit: As others have pointed out, "senior" is often used to indicate not only a longer period of membership, but a higher rank and greater perceived authority within the community.

If you simply want to express that someone's been a registered user of the site for a long time, then "long-standing" or "long-time member" might be a better option.

Given that a young member could have been here for longer than an older person, or someone might have been here for a long time but not achieved many privileges, I suggest long-standing member.

This has no implications of age, superiority or of anything else except purely the time they have been on the site.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/21249/chasly - reinstate Monica

A person might be in their twenties but be a member of a Stack exchange site for as many as 8 years.

In that case, elder or senior member sounds a bit of a misnomer.

I prefer veteran user ( a person who has had long experience in a particular field. )

hi-rep user (only applicable

if the user does indeed have >5K or if the site is large >10K in reputation) See also @pinkfrosty's answer

(See Edit section at the bottom as well.)

For your situation, senior member is correct and is much better than elder member .

If senior is used like an adjective, in situations like this, it usually means that someone has been with the company/site longer, that they have a higher rank, or something else like that.

This includes someone who has been using SE longer than you.

However senior can also be a noun.

It is a polite way to say old person .

Elder is usually also a noun.

It often means one of the oldest people in the group .

At other times though, it sometimes means an older member of the group, whose specific job/role is to advise and/or to lead .

You can also say elder ly member , which is a polite way to say old member .

Old member means the same thing as member who is old .

Elder member , however, typically means member who is an elder - which is similar to, but slightly different than member who is old .

senior (adjective) : having a higher rank, being with the site/company longer, or something similar old senior member (noun phrase) : member who has a higher rank, has been with the site/company longer, or something similar senior (noun) : old person

elder (noun) : one of the oldest people in the group an older member of the group, whose specific job/role is to advise and/or to lead elder member (noun phrase) : a member who is an elder elderly (adjective) : old elderly member (noun phrase) : a member who is old EDIT:

As was stated in the comments at one point in time, something closer to chasley - reinstate Monica's answer would be much better for Stack Exchange.

Senior member technically works, but Stack Exchange doesn't usually call it that.

Think of a job.

Different people have different titles, and the same job might have different titles at different companies.

For example, one company might use the word teacher , while another uses the word instructor .

Both are technically correct, but each organization has its own preferences.

The same applies for things like senior member .

It technically works for Stack Exchange, but it's a little ambiguous; and long-standing member , as @chasly-reinstateMonica suggested, is fairly unambigous and is much more appropriate for this group.

Realistically, both elder and senior are going to bother someone, eventually, as ageism.

Even "long-time" has that feel to it.

I try to pick something that's inherently a compliment to them instead.

I personally like more tongue in cheek descriptions like superior , ranking , eminent , ascendent , or tenured .

Tenured Member is hard for an experienced forum resident to take the wrong way, since its meaning is inherently respectful of high skill rather than being an age related reward.

There are many such complimentary words people use for sovereignty that can work.

Those only come off as demeaning if someone thinks you're being sarcastic, which is at least easy to correct when it happens.

(There's a reason Can't tell if serious or joking is a popular meme ))

Personally, I'd assume "elder member" was meant in the same context as "elder statesman" Collins : An experienced and respected member of an organization or professionis sometimes referred to as an elder statesman

I certainly wouldn't take it as referring to somebody as elderly, or in any way offensively.

That said, I can see how some people might not make that distinction.

As per other answers, senior or long-standing might be safer.

Question: Questions:   Can I refer to a person who has been using SE for a longer period of time than me as an  elder member ?   Is the usage of  senior member  correct?    Note:  Thanks for the good answers. I asked this  assuming  the word  elder  is applicable in terms of seniority as well, not necessarily physically older as written in  The Free Dictionary .   elder  adj.   Greater than another in age or seniority.   Archaic  Superior to another or others, as in rank.

Can I refer to someone as "elder member" in internet forums?

Although it's technically true that the user's account is older than yours, "elder" is generally used in a more narrow sense to describe someone's actual, real-life age, while "senior" is much more commonly used in this context and doesn't necessarily indicate an age difference.  If  senior  is used as an adjective, in situations like this, it usually means that someone has been with the company/site longer, or that they have a higher rank.  For your situation,  senior member  is correct and is much better than  elder member.

“Senior member" is correct in this context.


I found an answer on brainly.in that describes it as: Usually a bully is arrogant and dominating.

The poet wishes that if a bully could become softer and more compatible with others, just as butter on toast.

There's no idiom "buttered on toast" and I'm a native American English speaker.

However, in the context of poetry there is often significant creative freedom in the words chosen and used.

There is an idiom "to butter someone up" to please someone, so that that person will do what you want them to do.

The metaphor is that putting butter on something makes it less dry and easier to eat.

This is extended, as butter on toast becomes warm and soft.

The poet is inventing a metaphor that suggests "if bullies could become soft and would do what we want them to do just by being nice to them".

"Lost in the post" when talking about a letter means it was sent but never arrived.

It is sometimes used an excuse: "

No I didn't do the task, I never received your instruction, the letter must have got lost in the post.

This figuratively means "teachers don't come and interrupt my play with their boring lessons".

Similarly "bells never ring" refers to the bell that is rung at the end of break time when the pupils have to return to the classroom.

There is no idiom butter on toast , but there is the established phrase in Britan hot buttered toast , which I think the poem riffs on.

The post is still, I think, the most common term in Britain for what elsewhere might be called the mail .

(Think of "the Post Office", even in the US)

I tried searching corpora to justify that, but it' a bit difficult, because post is now in wide use to mean a post on an internet site.

But on the GloWbE corpus in the post to you has 15 instances in British sources and 1 in US; while in the mail to you has 5 US and 1 GB.

Edit:

I then thought of searching for "lost in the post|mail", and that gives a clear difference.

"Butter on toast" isn't exactly an idiom, but butter is often used in similes and metaphors to describe something as soft, smooth, or meltable.

Your example though says " buttered on toast".

To butter means to spread butter, usually on bread or toast, so "

[if] bullies [could] be buttered on toast" is imagining that bullies could be spread as if they were soft as butter .

A bully is often spoken of as a "tough" or "hard" person, so to wish they were soft is the opposite.

"Lost in the post" means lost in the mail .

In British English, we usually say "post" (postman, post service etc), whereas in American English they say "mail".

THe poet appears to be wishing that school teachers would disappear without trace, as if lost in the mail.

I believe the general idea of the poem is to focus on why things are the way they are through counter-factuals.

The general form being: if thing wasn't thing then we wouldn't have thing.

For example: if a bell didn't ring would it actually be a bell?

Isn't that the essence of what a bell is?

Or with the losses line: if a loss was a win it wouldn't be a loss.

It's a tautology.

If a bell didn't ring it wouldn't be a bell.

Finally: why are bullies a problem?

Well if bullies didn't bully we wouldn't have a problem with bullies.

The fact that they don't melt like butter (meaning: be warm and caring to others) but are instead cold and hard is the entire problem!

It's the essence of the idea of a bully, taking it (the hardness and coldness of bullies)

away means changing the definition and conception of the word itself.

The post line almost certainly is talking about mail

but I'm not entirely sure the exact meaning the author intended with it.

It might be about teachers who refuse to admit they are incorrect (instead they should admit on some questions they are 'lost in the post' or 'out to sea'), but I feel it's a stretch.

I doubt the author intends it to mean what if teachers don't exist? because that would seem to clash with the final line of "this world would be better than most."

Question: This is a stanza from Ruskin Bond's poem  If Mice Could Roar :   If tortoise could run And losses be won And bullies be buttered on toast   I can't understand the phrase  bullies be buttered on toast.  By the way, in another stanza of the same poem:   If pebbles could sing And bells never ring And teachers were lost in the  post ;   What is the meaning of  post  in this context?

Is "butter on toast" an idiom in English

The post line almost certainly is talking about mail.

It is probable that the meaning of post is mail.


Yes, this is a common, idiomatic response among English speakers where I live (California).

It's casual, so it's mainly used for the kind of casual situation where people would say "Thanks" all by itself, like in the following: "Could I have some of your sunscreen?"

"Sure, here you go.

"Thanks."

"Sure."

But in the following it would be out of place, because the context is not casual and the thank-you is a big deal: "After my wife died, I was really lost.

Your friendship meant a lot tome.

I don't know what I would have done without you.

Thanks."

"Sure."

Some people also have very strict ideas about manners, and might object to "sure" in all cases, even casual ones.

It depends on the person you are speaking to and the way you say it.

I don't think sure is a common way to respond to thanks , because it's potentially ambiguous.

It could be interpreted as a shortened form of: Sure thing! , which is equivalent to Anytime! or You're welcome!

It could also be interpreted as: Sure you are... , which is a sarcastic (read: rude) way of expressing your doubt that they are really thankful.

I would strongly suggest you only reply with Sure in a casual setting.

You also want to make sure you say it with enthusiasm to avoid misinterpretation.

Note the differing punctuation in my two examples.

Even better, respond in full: say Sure thing! . '

Fewer words' does not always mean 'preferable'.

in which situations it would be OK, and what exactly would it imply?

It would be okay in the USA.

If you said it in the UK, it would imply that you are using American English.

As has been said in comments, this may or may not be understood in other places than North America.

If it is understood, then it is through watching American TV and cinema.

In Britain, I would expect, "You're welcome", "No problem", "Not a problem", "

That's okay" or even just a smile or a nod of acknowledgement.

Depending on the exact context, some traditionally-minded people in Britain might say, "My pleasure" or "It was nothing", or (very old-fashioned)

"Think nothing of it".

In Australia (I'm not an expert), I might expect, "No problem", "No worries", "

You're welcome" EDIT See comment by @mdewey.

In Britain the phrase "No worries" is increasingly used.

If my memory serves, it came into use here after the release of the movie Crocodile Dundee where the phrase was used a lot by Australian characters.

You can search the script here http://www.allreadable.com/mv10758EEG8

ell.stackexchange.com/users/21249/chasly - reinstate Monica

It is a perfectly normal response that people will understand if you say it to them.

I say of course when someone says Thank you, and I see that as a normal response also.

The same with no problem, you're welcome, yes, etc.

I see it is as a much better response than receiving no response at all.

I'm American, born and raised, and even I wouldn't say "sure" unless I'm using it dismissively.

Trying to get across that I don't care about their gratitude.

This is just a product of my childhood though.

When I was in Middle-school I had a teacher that would always send me out of class for responding with "sure" so to me (and her

I guess)

it has a negative annotation.

Now I just respond with "anytime", using various levels of sarcasm to get my feelings across.

It's only standard in parts of the USA, as far as I know.

In Eastern Canada * , "sure" comes across as rude.

We normally say "(You're) welcome" or "No problem" instead, or maybe "Don't mention it", "My pleasure", or "No worries".

But if it's an American saying "sure", I think most Canadians will know what they mean, and not be offended.

For context, there's a cultural aspect to this: in general, Canadians and Americans are equally nice, but Canadians take a polite angle, while Americans take a modest angle, downplaying their generosity.

I can't speak for anything west of Quebec

While I would not consider replying with "Sure" to be polite, I have noticed that it is extremely common among Indian English speakers to reply with "Sure" in this context as a normal reply.

Here is an example: "

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation you gave.

" "Sure." For a frame of reference, I am a traditional fellow from the deep South and hearing "Sure" in response to an expression of gratitude in formal or business contexts comes across as shockingly improper at best, and dismissive or sarcastic at worst, depending on tone.

I personally would not ever say it.

In a very informal context with close friends and among the younger generations, saying "Sure, no problem," or "Sure, anytime," are more common.

I cannot think of a time I have heard "Sure" by itself without it being deliberately sarcastic or dismissive, however.

I don't even get the "sure thing" example, actually.

You think it's a sure thing that I'm thankful?

I'm not sure what that would mean

but I don't think it's flattering.

If the OP finds themselves in a group for which this seems to be convention, then, fine, go with it.

If there's any chance that that the conversation partner is actually going to try to process its meaning, I'd avoid it...for sure.

Question: When someone says   ..., thanks.   Is it appropriate to respond with   sure   If so, in which situations it would be OK, and what exactly would it imply?

Is it OK to respond to "thanks" with "sure"?

This is a common, idiomatic response among English speakers where I live (California). Elsewhere, one might expect, "You're welcome", "No problem", "Not a problem".  It is a casual expresison, mainly used for the kind of situation where people would say "Thanks" all by itself, as in:  "Could I have some of your sunscreen?. "Sure".

Yes, it is possible to answer with "sure" in the USA although it can be considered to be dismissive both in the USA and Britain and is reserved for casual situations.

Yes, it is possible to answer with "sure" in the USA although it can be considered to be dismissive both in the USA and Britain.

It is normally used in more casual settings.


I wouldn't use "white glass"; just look it up on Google, that means something made of glass but with a white tint, and you can't see through that kind of glass.

The glass in a household mirror is transparent, but since all glass in those kind of mirrors is transparent, you don't need to mention it.

In fact, they all contain glass, so even saying "glass mirror" would be a little redundant.

If you do feel the need of describing it, "clear glass" (thanks @MichaelHarvey), "transparent glass" and "colourless/colorless glass" (

depending on whether you write British or American English) are technically correct and should be understandable.

The first option is used most often: (source: Google Ngrams )

A mirror is usually referred to as "silvered glass", since it was often made by depositing silver nitrate on one side, as the Wikipedia entry describes.

"White glass" would (to me) be more an antique glass called "milk glass", because it's milky white. "

Transparent glass" is, well, a window.

A normal everyday mirror that isn't colored is just a "mirror".

There's no need to specify that it DOESN'T have an unusual quality.

While "white glass" would mean translucent milky glass, and window glass could be called "clear glass", a "clear glass mirror" is a confusing contradiction in terms.

A mirror isn't clear, it's a mirror.

I'm having a hard time understanding what kind of phrase you're building where you need to describe a mirror as something other than a mirror.

Transparent colorless glass in front of a silver reflective material.'

The term 'white glass' evokes thoughts of either milk glass or frosted glass , typically implying that the glass is question is neither colorless nor entirely transparent.

The term 'transparent glass' by itself is ambiguous in that something can be colored but sufficiently clear to be considered transparent.

Some varieties uranium glass and cranberry glass provide some particularly visually striking examples of colored but transparent glass (note that the cranberry glass in that Wikipedia article is actually translucent not transparent, but this is due to the complex shapes of the pieces and not the color (cranberry glass is rather expensive, so it's more common to see complicated shapes made from it which tend to result in it not being truly transparent)).

Combining 'transparent' with 'colorless' accurately describes the glass found in most mirrors that use a layer of glass to protect the reflective material, though in more modern mirrors it may be an acrylic or polycarbonate layer instead of glass (resulting in a less expensive mirror, but you have to be more careful about how you clean it)

The layer of reflective material behind the glass is best described in almost all house mirrors as 'silvery', which refers to a near colorless grey or white material with a very high reflectance.

Traditionally this would have actually been a very thin layer of silver, though these days aluminum or a highly reflective polymer such as BoPET is much more common because it's a lot less expensive (and technically more reflective).

" Frosted glass " is the most common term normally used for glass with some opacity.

Some glass manufacturers use other terms such as "obscure glass".

"Transparent glass" isn't a term I've ever heard.

It sounds like a tautology - transparent glass is just glass!

But if you were trying to differentiate between normal glass and frosted glass, you might say " clear glass".

Glass which acts as a mirror is called " mirror glass ", or perhaps " mirrored glass ".

A "one-way mirror" is a pane of glass which is only reflective one-way.

If you wanted to describe glass which had some mirror properties but still had some degree of transparency you might describe it as "reflective glass".

First of all, as others have observed, "white glass" is definitely wrong.

That suggests glass that has been colored or painted white.

It is also confusing to say something like "we bought a clear glass mirror" or "on the wall was a clear glass mirror".

I would wonder if it was a special mirror that you could see through or something.

Really, the proper description probably depends on context.

What other kinds of mirror is this mirror being contrasted with?

Ordinarily, if you just say "a mirror", people assume you mean an ordinary mirror.

If you have to be more clear, you might say "an ordinary mirror, like you would find at home."

Rereading your question, if this mirror is being contrasted with ones that are colored, I think the term "colorless" would work well.

Perhaps "ordinary colorless mirror" just to emphasize that this is just like the ones people see every day.

The mirror I want to describe is a normal mirror which isn't coloured, the simple one found at our home.

A plain [glass] mirror , unframed mirror or frameless mirror

I suspect is what the OP is asking about.

In all of the above, the mirror is flushed with the wall, so a frame is unnecessary.

As mirrors age the silver at the back erodes and loses reflectiveness, which is referred to as clouding .

So a mirror which is functioning perfectly could also be referred to as unclouded , if you are emphasising that it is producing a good reflection.

Question: I was writing an essay wherein I encountered the need of writing the description of a mirror. The mirror I want to describe is a normal mirror which isn't coloured, the simple one found at our home. So should I use the words "white glass" or "transparent glass" or some other alternative?

"White glass" or "transparent glass"?

The glass in a household mirror is transparent, but since  all  glass in those kind of mirrors is transparent, you don't need to mention it.

The glass in a mirror is transparent but there is no need to qualify it as being transparent or white.


This means an election for an elected position, with people directly voting for the choice of candidates (e.g. US Presidential elections don't count, since they are votes for the electors and not directly for the President).

Referendums on a topic also don't count.

The current response to this question is the 2014 Brazil direct presidential election.

(Being precise of what is asked it is its first round, since more votes were casted.

But following a criterion of votes effectively casted to any of the candidates, the answer would be the second round).

See details below: In the first round (October 5) there were 142 822 046 eligible voters of whom 115 122 611 voted ( 104 023 543 effectively in 1 of the 11 candidates, the difference accounting for nulls or blank votes).

In the second round (October 26) there were the same 142 822 046 eligible voters of whom 112 683 879 voted ( 105 542 274 effectively in 1 of the 2 remaining candidates, the difference accounting for nulls or blank votes).

By the way, with this election, Senator Aecio Neves also holds the record as the most directly voted runner-up (losing with a record of 51 041 155 votes).

On the other hand the re-elected President Dilma Roussef, with 54 501 119 just held the title of the second most voted winner on a direct election.

She herself received more votes in the 2010 election ( 55 752 529 ).

Besides that, the Oscar to the most directly voted person on an election goes to Lula da Silva, with 58 295 042 in 2006.

Observation: note that in the second round less eligible voters showed up to the ballot (~112 millions versus ~115 millions 3 weeks sooner), nevertheless the sum of the votes for the remaining two candidates (~105.5 million) exceeds the sum of theirs plus the previous other 9 candidates 3 weeks before (~104 million) with more than 1.5 million votes.

References here .

The world's largest democracy is India, and as such, it is not unreasonable to assume that this is the world's largest election.

In 2009, for example, the total vote count was 714 million which is larger than that of the United States and EU combined.

In a fashion similar to that of the United States President, the President of India is indirectly elected through electors , but if the President of the United States can be said to be elected "by the people" (and indeed, there are vote tallies that often show how many people "voted for the candidate"), then the same can be said of the President of India.

In 2012 , there were over 700,000 electoral votes (compared to 538 in the United States) cast for Pranab Mukerjee and another 300,000 for his closest rival.

Each of these electors is traceable to the will of 1,000 residents in each state, meaning that over a billion people are represented.

That said, since the question directly excludes electors, we need move on to the Lok Sahba.

In 2009, Manmohan Singh's Congress Party received over 153 million votes in a three-way election that the United Kingdom's Guardian called the "world's largest democratic poll" .

The election itself was 28 days long and involved nearly 700 million voters.

In a party based system, the choice of party could be considered tantamount to choosing its leader, so may or may not fall within the scope of the question.

That all said, with only 543 seats in the Lok, there is bound to be a single constituency within that body that would almost certainly take the prize.

In contrast to China, its logical rival, which has 2,987 members in its parliment and is of dubious democratic value, the sheer number of members (4 times the members, similar sized electorate) dictates that each seat in India would have the most direct electors per position.

Actually Indonesia has a larger voter population than Brazil (the accepted answer).

For the 2019 election On 5 September 2018, the KPU announced there were 187 million registered voters – 185,732,093 in Indonesia and 2,049,791 voting abroad.

The Indonesian president is directly elected albeit in a two-round system (like Brazil), but candidates need the support of 20% of political parties (as represented in the Indonesian parliament = DPR) for their nomination.

In the aforementioned election, there were 154,257,601 valid votes cast in the presidential contest, substantially more than in Brazil (as an absolute number, the participation rate was pretty similar around 80%).

Although the election was also fairly split 55.5% vs 44.5%.

Jokowi won with 85,607,362 also a larger absolute number than for Brazil's election from the accepted answer.

These numbers also comfortably "beat" the 2018 election of Bolsonaro as well: 147,305,825 registered voters, 117,364,560 votes cast, 57,797,847 votes for Bolsonaro (2nd round).

For the sake of mentioning this too, Brazil is considered somewhat more democratic/freethan Indonesia in both in EIU's democracy index and Freedom House's .

The correct answer to this question in its current form would be the following.

The largest direct election to a single position by the number ofeligible voters is the 2012 presidential election in Russia.

Therewere 109 860 331 eligible voters of whom 71 104 543 cast a vote.

Therewere 109 860 331 eligible voters of whom 71 104 543 cast a vote.

There were

106 484 518 eligible voters ofwhom 79 471 282 cast a vote.

2014 Indian parliamentary elections won by Narendra Modi led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

Question: What was the largest popular vote election ever held for a personally-held position?  This means an election for an elected position, with people directly voting for the choice of candidates (e.g. US Presidential elections don't count, since they are votes for the electors and not directly for the President). Referendums on a topic also don't count.  I'm fine with any reasonable method of measuring the size (# of eligible voters, or # of actual votes cast).

What was the largest popular vote election ever held?

The 2014 Indian parliamentary elections, won by Narendra Modi, led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to government. The largest direct election to a single position by the number of eligible voters was the 2012 presidential election in Russia.

The answer may be either of: the 2014 Indian parliamentary elections; or the 2012 Russian presidential election.


Formally, the Twenty Seventh Amendment stipulates that salary changes made by congress cannot take effect until after the next house elections.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

In other words, Representatives would be voted out of office before they would receive the benefit, and Representatives have no incentive to approve the change for Senators who will remain in office.

(A quid pro quo plan would also prove ineffective as those who would receive the future salary would have no incentive to pay back the poor ousted congressperson; the rich and powerful need a reason to give back to the poor and weak, heart isn't enough).

There are also several informal reasons why congress doesn't vote itself to become rich.

Here I name a few.

First,the average congressional person likely receives more benefits from office than 100 million dollars.

Second, in times of divided government (when one party does not control both chambers or both congress and the executive) coordinating 268 people to become rich is difficult.

Third, because both parties would receive the pay raise, they lack an incentive to empower their opposition.

Finally, morals and norms can constrain behaviors.

For instance,some politicians may have scruples that would lead them to avoid devastating the country's finances.

There are also congressional norms that dictate behavior and constrain congresspeople from wild actions, such as blatantly putting money in their own pockets.

Taking a US-Centric approach:

On the one hand, they do--at least indirectly.

For example, a politician can, and often does, becomes a lobbyist on K-Street .

This is called revolving door politics and they've either avoided making laws to prevent this, or made sure the laws they do make have enough leeway and loopholes to not really impact this 'tradition'.

Another example is laws they've passed to make themselves immune to insider trading laws .

On the other hand, they don't really have to.

Most politicians are already wealthy.

One needs a certain amount of wealth to typically enter national politics.

For example, the average net worth of a senator is well into the millions .

Upon leaving office, there's also plenty of opportunities to increase one's wealth.

Typical positions in addition to lobbyists would be highly paid consultants, board members on large corporations, 'think tank' members, or even just well paid speaker circuit 'celebrities'.

Why don't politicians decide to pass laws that make themselves really rich?

They do.

But the most effective way of doing so is not directly take government money and give it to the legislature members, but pass legislation that would benefit industry with which the representatives are associated or the companies that sponsor the election campaign.

This includes changes in taxation, regulations, wars and revolutions abroad etc.

Politicians regularly do pass laws to make themselves rich (and/or use information gathered in the course of making law to inform their investment choices).

They tend to avoid doing so blatantly, as acting in such an overt manner encourages public outcry/retaliation.

It's the difference between passing a

"You can elect only Republicans" law and gerrymandering .

Also, they'd have to amend the constitution to actually benefit themselves (at least in the U.S.)

Simply put, it is easier and less (politically) dangerous to become wealthy in other, less overt ways.

A specific example is rampant insider trading by U.S. politicians .

When the issue became a media focus, congress passed the STOCK Act to deflect public outcry.

As soon as the media spotlight had moved on, the law was quietly dismantled.

If you want a larger answer than the U.S. , most countries have Courts of high levels, which can use judicial review, or powers vested, to determine if a law passed by the legislature is in spirit with the Constitution of the country.

Also, some guys in some countries, get their Member of legislature funds for the constituency, which they can swindle.

And some, can rake out money, using their influence, through various sources.

So roughly, these factors combined with soundness of tact, prevent any legitimate ridiculousness from occuring.

Question: Why don't US politicians in the Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court decide to give themselves, say, 100 million dollars each? I understand that the politicians doing so wouldn't get reelected and that their political career would end, but why would it matter if they already made themselves rich?

Why don't politicians decide to pass laws that make themselves really rich?

Politicians regularly pass laws to make themselves rich (and/or use information gathered in the course of making law to inform their investment choices). They tend to avoid doing so blatantly, as acting in such an overt manner encourages public outcry/retaliation.  If you want a wider answer than the U.S., most countries have High Courts, which can use judicial  review to determine if a law passed by the legislature is aligned with the Constitution of the country.

Politicians regularly pass laws to make themselves rich but not blatantly to avoid public outcry. Also, most countries use judicial review or powers to determine whether a law passed by the legislature is in line with the country’s constitution.

Politicians regularly pass laws to make themselves rich. They do pass laws to make themselves rich but not blatantly to avoid public outcry. Most countries use judicial review or powers to determine whether a law passed by the legislature is in line with the country’s constitution.


Firstly, much work perceived as necessary is a result of social choice.

Shit shovelling, as a quintessential example has been widely replaced by sewering or compost-toileting or mechanised sewage removal.

Many "necessary" roles may in fact not be.

Secondly, work isn't "necessarily" unpleasant.

In the Australian context, sanimen who carried the can in relation to sewage disposal were decently paid and well respected.

Garbage men used to be sinecures given to local amateur sports heros.

Sewering engineers were well paid, particularly after society recognised their responsibilities.

Society and culture produces the unpleasantness of some work, by declaring it to be unpleasant.

The core of the question is why would people do necessary work, the largest direct answer is someone will want to do anything if you ask them to do it.

The second section of the answer is some people will do anything if you ask them to do anything.

These arguments rely on the idea of the excess of productivity in existing society being largely spent on waste, which would therefore reduce the real necessity that people would not otherwise choose to do to a minimum.

The idea of necessary work is largely wrong

The idea of necessarily unpleasant work is wrong People will voluntarily choose to do needed things, particularly if they're asked to do so and respected for doing so

Only speculative answers can be given, based on various visions of communism or anarchism, since the actual 'pure' communism/anarchism was not implemented.

The modern examples of communism, like kibbutz or open source, are based on volunteers.

Volunteers are a special group of people, and they are free to leave in any moment.

We have no idea how would, for example, kibbutz function if there were people born there with no option to leave.

The Machno state was a rural one, short lasting, and was never self-sustaining (in that sense it didn't produced all the tools it used) and it was de facto a form of military government.

The technological vision of communism (like Star Trek) is very near (if not exactly) what the Marx described as building the material basis for communism - the production is automatized to the amount, where there is enough goods to fulfill people's needs.

In that world, any dirty or boring work is made by machines, the people do only the creative work.

Communism as such does not exclude government, and the justice concept requires to give anyone everything they need, but to demand to give back to community as they are able to, so people who are not able to do more sophisticated work, may be forced to do the unpleasant/boring one.

Anarchism as such bans institutional government, but the human remains the social being, therefore prone to social pressure .

If you expect anyone to work for society, the social pressure for the people that do nothing should be enough to move at least some of them to do the unpleasant job, so they won't be looked down as parasites.

Anarcho-capitalism removes military pressure from government, but leaves the pressure that can be just as effective - the economic pressure.

The people will be forced to do any job, no matter how unpleasant, in order to survive.

Who shovels shit around here?

Just to use what I think is a pretty apt comparison, the SE network is pretty communal if not anarchistic.

Community rules are more or less agreed upon by the community and mostly enforced by the community.

But who handles the less desirable work around here?

Who deals with the worst of our rubbish?

The moderators.

Why do people decide to take on moderator positions?

Often it's because they're held up with a certain regard, and they like their community enough to want to be of service.

Here's to you, the glorious janitors.

Society will allocate more resources to get rid of nasty jobs.

If everyone doesn't want to do it, then they'll be willing to spend more time working at other things (generating wealth) to trade for someone willing to shovel the shit.

If everyone is given everything they need, and nobody needs to work:

Self responsibility: You have to shovel your own shit, since nobody else is willing to do it for you.

Draw lots: Bad luck dude, you're shoveling shit today.

In order: It's your turn to shovel shit today.

Some people won't mind shoveling shit, or will be more efficient at it.

And they will collect money (if it exists) or favors on the black market and shovel other people's shit, in order to get more/have more/get laid more/whatever.

And imagine a real labor market.

What if every job was up for bid, and didn't rely on old-boy networks, seniority, etc?

With real job requirements (not, say: needs an Ivy league education (which is just a white-washing the old-boy networking requirements/have enough money to buy your way in)).

How much would you bid to: play golf with other decision makers, have a private jet, secretary, change company policies, determine products or services offered, business direction, etc?

Or, fly into space and perform experiments?

How much would you bid for a needed salary to wear protective gear, get medical checkups, and shovel shit?

I suspect you'd bid at least 100K to be the shit-shoveler, and

maybe bid -10K (or whatever you've got in savings divided by 10) to be the CEO.

If the job was determined by selection amongst the lowest bids, the highest paid jobs would be the worst jobs, and the best jobs would cost money to have, or pay next to nothing (you'd work a bad job for years in order to buy your way into a nice job).

This would result in bad jobs being automated away, and good jobs being broken apart

so there were more of them.

The history shows that enemies of the revolution are the ones who do the dirty work.

Read Aleksandr Solzhenitszn's "The Gulag Archipelago" , any reports on the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia , or "The Bamboo Gulag" by Nghia M. Vo.

Question: In an anarchist society, or a society of "higher" or full communism, who does the necessary and necessarily unpleasant work required to keep society functioning?

Who does the most unpleasant dirty work in full communism?

The history shows that enemies of the revolution are the ones who do the dirty work.

The moderators and enemies of the revolution do the dirty work.


There are various reasons: Societal mechanisms - Lower levels of trust.

This is a common social approach -

if someone shows themselves as willing to break the social contract (laws), they have lower level of trust.

In terms of franchise, it means they can't be trusted with the responsibilities of said franchise - as a concept, not necessarily out of specific "he will vote for a felon organization" fear.

Moral - Punitive.

Leaving aside whether this is a good idea, or an efficient one; there are definitely people who feel that removing franchise for committing a felony is a just punishment.

Practical - worry about abuse of power.

This is slightly similar to #1, but whereas #1 was a generic principle over generic trust levels, this one is more about specific consequences.

To counter your somewhat amused "felons organising politically and exerting an influence on politics" quip, recall that this is exactly what organized crime and corruption does and achieves, from Sicily to Russia.

Or going further back, Blues and Greens of Rome.

From this answer on Why allow convicted criminals to vote? , @origimbo gave one reason to allow them to vote as being protection against the following algorithm: Win a legislative election.

Pass any law which disproportionately imprisons the supporters of your opponents.

Profit.

conversely, one reason to keep them from voting would be to use this algorithm. @Schwern

posted in the comments of the original answer pointing out that the War on Drugs was one case where this was used.

You mentioned this practice in relation to the US; the legal basis at least would be section 2 of the 14th amendment :

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime , the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Felony disenfranchisement was specifically upheld because of this in the case Richardson v. Ramirez .

The legal basis of the practice in the US is sort of an anachronism since a major reason the amendment is worded that way was to help maintain Republican power and suppress the Democrats who were previously part of the Confederacy.

So the historical case that actively grants the state this power, came about because the Republicans wanted to more easily maintained political power.

This seems like an obvious avenue for them to take since the power to curtail (and expand) voting rights is pretty powerful in a democracy.

It granted a legal basis to Republican rule beyond just military occupation of the South.

It's hard to judge the intent of the practice in all individual cases since laws regarding felony disenfranchisement were passed before and after the 14th amendment and the Reconstruction era.

But given the history of Jim Crow and poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses meant to restrict voting rights, this practice seems like another obvious way to control voting rights and maintain white supremacy.

Sometimes its really obvious, like the 1901 Alabama state constitution that removes voting rights for among other things, "miscegenation", which of course, is itself a crime.

Other times we have to look at the results to give us clues about what the intent may have been.

For example, when we examine the relative rates of current felony disenfranchisement and where it occurs, the desire to maintain political power and white supremacy via control of voting rights is probably still present:

So that you can suppress voting among a constituency that does not support you.

Look at the group of people that is disproportionately incarcerated and what are typically their voting intentions .

If you crunch the numbers, you will find that for every single Republican vote removed by felony disenfranchisement, you remove roughly five Democrat votes.

The scholarship of Montesquieu is particularly apt here :

According to Montesquieu, a necessary condition for the existence of a republican government, whether democratic or aristocratic, is that the people in whom supreme power is lodged possess the quality of “public virtue,” meaning that they are motivated by a desire to achieve the public good.

Although public virtue may not be necessary in a monarchy and is certainly absent in despotic regimes, it must be present to some degree in aristocratic republics and to a large degree in democratic republics.

Sounding a theme that would be loudly echoed in Madison’s

“Federalist 10,” Montesquieu asserts that without strong public virtue, a democratic republic is likely to be destroyed by conflict between various “factions,” each pursuing its own narrow interests at the expense of the broader public good.

From him directly : When virtue is banished, ambition enters the hearts that are disposed to receive it, and avarice enters all of them.

The desires change their objects; what once they loved, they love no longer; they were free under the laws, and now they want to be free to act against them; each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master’s house;...

The republic is reduced to mere appearance; and its strength is but the power of a few citizens, and the licence (to commit crime) of all.

Allowing criminals to vote diminishes both civic bonds and what it means to be a citizen precisely because it allows the contagion or criminality a voice and entry as legitimate into the public sphere.

Question: Felony disenfranchisement  is to take away someone's right to vote during or after this person is in prison.  It appears particularly common in the United States.  What is the aim of such a rule?  Is it meant as an additional punishment to the individual involved, or is there a perceived risk of felons organising politically and exerting influence on politics?

What is the motivation for felony disenfranchisement?

There are moral and punitive reasons. However, there may be practical reasons, with concerns about abuse of power or profiteering. Some say it may be used to suppress voting among a constituency that does not support you.

The reasons are as follows: moral, punitive, to prevent abuse of power, to suppress voting or to profit.


The short answer is: the U.S. has probably not helped ISIS inadvertently, but arms have probably fallen into ISIS hands from the U.S.

In essence, you are proposing two different mechanisms for the delivery of material.

The first is the acquisition of arms from the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and the second is accidental delivery of weaponry intended for anti-ISIS or anti-Ba'ath fighters in Syria.

The first mechanism is highly improbable.

First, consulates are not usually armed, and the one in Benghazi was specifically understaffed and under-protected, meaning that very little was available to be shipped from Libya to Syria or Iraq.

Furthermore, the distance between the two areas is daunting, being at least 2000km by land, or 1500km by sea just to reach Syria.

The second mechanism is actually quite likely.

The U.S. has provided assistance to at least three sets of groups in the area: the Iraqi government, Kurdish militias and anti-regime militias in Syria.

Due to the occupation of Iraq (2003-11) the U.S. has very good personalistic ties in Iraq and with Kurds, and consequently is unlikely to be misdelivering arms to those groups.

On the other hand, the Syrian situation is particularly murky.

It is likely that at some point arms were delivered to a Syrian group that made their way to ISIS.

The ultimate question, however, is whether or not that helped ISIS.

The answer is that it probably did not help materially primarily because ISIS' problem is not a shortage of small arms, which is what the U.S. is sending.

Since the fall of Mosul ISIS has had in its possession major weapons, including armored vehicles and helicopters, and the addition of machine guns or additional assault rifles is not likely to materially increase their capability relative to other groups.

politics.stackexchange.com/users/5309/The Pompitous of Love

I'm not familiar with the US helping IS in the manner you're suggesting, but it is common for opponents of intervention in the Middle East to argue that the US's continued intervention helps IS and other organizations recruit.

The argument is basically that terrorism is the natural response an occupier that can't be fought outright due to asymmetry; so, by this logic, the US's continued intervention in the Middle East inadvertently helps IS by motivating people to join them against the West.

And more generally, there are cases where the US has supported one side of a conflict and the arms given in support have ended being used against the US or its allies.

This is called blowback .

There are claims that some members of IS are former Syrian rebels that were trained/armed by the US, but I can't find a credible link that supports the claim.

(In other words, take it with a grain of salt.)

Yes, the leading cause of terrorism is military occupation.

When the US occupies Yemen, Afghanistan, and has bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, and Kuwait, then that helps IS to recruit more terrorists.

Also, I add, US and west aided the Syrian rebels against Asad regime.

Aid was in many ways, mostly weapons.

And we know, IS was one of the parties of the rebellion.

B Other than that, US disbanded the Iraqi Army during occupation.

Not only was Iraq drained of veterans and trained manpower, but some also say, these veterans joined the ranks of IS.

Not only did the United States help ISIS , they supported them.

Who do you think was fighting Assad when they said he must go?

Once they made that statement they in-directly supported ISIS fighters.

Yes,I include the entire developed in this not just the USA.

ISIS gets most of its funding from the direct or indirect sale of oil.

Every time we full up our car help increase the demand for oil.

We are not willing to stop trading with counties we know

allows their people to support the like of ISIS, due to wanting access to their oil.

It does not matter where we get OUR oil from, as by buying it, we stop it being sold to someone else, and therefore increase the demand for the oil

the ISIS and their supporters sell.

(Throughout history, it seems that the “locals” have never done well where there has been a natural resource in a country that could be exploited for great profit without the requirement to create great employment in the process.

The people in power WILL get rich, much better if they do so my creating employment for the rest...)

Yes, there have certainly been incidences of the kind of accidental help you've been talking about.

The link below for example is to a story about how a US weapons drop via parachute was accidentally intercepted on the ground by ISIS, who took the weapons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsVaFpXgCfU Further, prior to those sorts of accidents when ISIS was first expanding into Iraq, ISIS fighters came across large amounts of weaponry that the US military left behind e.g. equipment for Iraqi Army soldiers that were left at the bases the Iraqis abandoned, during ISIS' surge into the North.

(Another report, on the above topic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Hn1GXBrG4 Cheers

Question: Occasionally it is heard from different sources that united states of America is accidentally helping ISIS through various approaches such as sending the parcels of bombs or other war weapons by airplanes and …? such as:     http://fa.alalam.ir  /  www.khabaronline.ir/World/middle-east  http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-general-we-helped-build-isis-islamic-state-obtained-weapons-from-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-libya/5399141   The USA government claims they have sent them wrongly. Is there any data that shows that this shipments to ISIS are likely to be errors? (I.e. they make up a small percentage of all supply shipments)  Or does USA help ISIS in total? (in different ways)

Did the USA inadvertently help ISIS?

The U.S. has probably not helped ISIS inadvertently, but arms have probably fallen into ISIS hands from the U.S. As the U.S. has provided assistance to the Iraqi government, Kurdish militias and anti-regime militias in Syria, occupies Yemen and Afghanistan, and has bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, and Kuwait, then that helps IS to recruit more terrorists.

While the US has probably not assisted ISIS directly, they may have done so inadvertently. Moreover, through US occupation of Yemen and Afghanistan, and US bases being present in SA, Bahrain, Quatar, Iraq and Kuwait, ISIS are better quipped to recruit terrorists.

While the US has probably not assisted ISIS directly, they may have done so inadvertently. Through US occupation of Yemen and Afghanistan, and US bases being present in SA, Bahrain, Quatar, Iraq and Kuwait, ISIS are better quipped to recruit terrorists.