vocabulary with post-its

If you are learning vocab it can be great fun to write words on those smallest size sticky post-it notes. You can write the translation and the grammatical info on the back. Then you can stick them to every day objects. For example: you can stick "молоко" on our milk bottle in the fridge "масло" on the butter and "холодильник" on the fridge door. This is not only a good method to learn your vocab, it also helps your brain to become quicker at recognising word imagery. Have fun. It also impresses the visitors.

Consumer warning, Post it notes will make a fat rich yank, fatter and richer.

What happens if someone switches all the notes while you're gone?

Masking tape them down. In fact, why not just use little bits of paper with sticky tape, then instead of making the fat yank rich, you can help promote slave labor in china and india.

A better method would be to tie yourself to a chair and have someone shout the words at you. If you can't memorize them they hurl the food item at your face until you learn.

Alright, we can really get bad here, why don't you get some one to tie you up and shoot your toes off if you get words wrong. Kinda reminds me of the American police.

Well - that is a good system if you only want to learn 10 words. punitive electroshocks might improve memory :twisted:

You guys only have ten toes? Losers.

Yerh sorry mike, only 10 toes here too. We only have one nuclear thing in Australia, and it's on the other side of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z80

Alright, we can really get bad here, why don't you get some one to tie you up and shoot your toes off if you get words wrong. Kinda reminds me of the American police.

---

Umm, as opposed to what? Chinese police? Iraqi police? Lay off our cops, 99.99% of them are great, just like in the UK or Australia or France or wherever. A couple of loose nuts in California and NYC do not make a system of torture, just as a couple of major escapes do not make the French police lax.

Okay, politicizing over, return to your normal conversation. "Ten ways to memorize words using torture techniques", I think.

I think most police generally believe they are doing the right thing and do a good job. What annoys me is not so much the rampant, almost romanticized corruption in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the attitude of authority many of them exert over citizens. They are civil servants. Yeah, the job is rough, boring and sometimes dangerous. That's why we devote tax money to paying for their salaries instead of making it 70% voluntary like the fire department. Stuff like this is inexcusable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

I think most police generally believe they are doing the right thing and do a good job. What annoys me is not so much the rampant, almost romanticized corruption in places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the attitude of authority many of them exert over citizens. They are civil servants. Yeah, the job is rough, boring and sometimes dangerous. That's why we devote tax money to paying for their salaries instead of making it 70% voluntary like the fire department. Stuff like this is inexcusable.

---

Yeah, that is a problem, I'll admit. I think one of the reasons it's a little worse in the U.S. than in similar westernized countries like Japan and England is the gun culture. In a country full of firearms (but with a very open social system), you end up with a police force that is (A) armed with the power of life and death, and (B) under a constant death threat themselves. This leads to extra "machismo" among cops, which can lead to the attitudes you mentioned.

But still, the vast vast majority of cops in the U.S. are conscientious and follow the law very closely. It's not a police state, you won't be beaten for a confession, you're free to criticize the police, and you have the right to an attorney and a speedy trial. Not enough countries in the world can say that as I'd like.

Well, some people are beaten for a confession. Look at the four men (I can't remember their names, I'll look them up) recently released from death row in Illinois because their confessions were obtained after they were physically tortured by the police.

Here it is: Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard and Leroy Orange. This is an excerpt from a CNN article:

The four pardoned men are part of the so-called "Burge 10" death row inmates who say they had confessions tortured out of them by police under the direction of Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge. He was fired after internal police investigators found systemic evidence of physical abuse of suspects.

The four men "were tortured," the governor said. "There isn't any question about that."

[Governor Ryan] discussed their cases in his speech.

• Police said Patterson, 38, confessed to the April 1986 stabbing of an elderly couple in Chicago. Patterson never signed the confession and during his interrogation scrawled, "I lie about murders, police threaten me with violence," into a bench with a paper clip.

• Hobley, 42, was convicted of killing seven people in an arson fire in 1987. Private investigators later developed evidence that a metal gas can found at the scene used to connect Hobley to the arson was planted. He long contended he was a torture victim, too.

• Orange, 52, was sentenced to die for taking part in the stabbing of his former girlfriend, her 10-year-old son and two others. The conviction came despite Orange's description of torture and testimony that his half brother, Leonard Kidd, was the one who stabbed the victims. Kidd, also on death row, claims he too was tortured into confessing.

• Howard, 40, was convicted in a 1987 murder and also contended he had been tortured.

They "four men did not know each other," Ryan said, "all getting beaten and tortured and convicted on the same basis of the confessions that they allegedly provided. They are perfect examples of what is so terribly broken about our system."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garmonistka

For example: you can stick "молоко" on our milk bottle in the fridge "масло" on the butter and "холодильник" on the fridge door.

---

When you see an elephant walking outside your house, don't forget to stick слон to it.

:o I have some better advice: If you see an elephant walking around outside your house, stick Бегу to yourself.

I bet they where black fellows too.

Yes.

Why do american govoment hate there black people for? Do most white americans hate there black people too? If you do, I propose a swap. We'll have your black fellows, and you can have ours!

I don't think it's the government. It's just local people that happen to be cops. They take their idiotic beliefs into the force with them, but suddenly have a nightstick to back them up with. Also, bad experiences can cause a lot of it. My uncle in Texas used to have a lot of black friends, but once he was breaking up a fight in this roller disco (he was a policeman) and some black lady smashed a bottle on his head and the two or three men that were there just kept kicking him while he was on the ground. Now he won't let minorities anywhere near his house.

Yerh, i don't like minorities ether.

Bad news everyone, your a minority unless your Chinese or is it India that has the largest population now?

Probably still China. There are like a billion Han Chinese alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

Well, some people are beaten for a confession. Look at the four men (I can't remember their names, I'll look them up) recently released from death row in Illinois because their confessions were obtained after they were physically tortured by the police.

Here it is: Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley, Stanley Howard and Leroy Orange. This is an excerpt from a CNN article:

The four pardoned men are part of the so-called "Burge 10" death row inmates who say they had confessions tortured out of them by police under the direction of Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge. He was fired after internal police investigators found systemic evidence of physical abuse of suspects.

The four men "were tortured," the governor said. "There isn't any question about that."

[Governor Ryan] discussed their cases in his speech.

• Police said Patterson, 38, confessed to the April 1986 stabbing of an elderly couple in Chicago. Patterson never signed the confession and during his interrogation scrawled, "I lie about murders, police threaten me with violence," into a bench with a paper clip.

• Hobley, 42, was convicted of killing seven people in an arson fire in 1987. Private investigators later developed evidence that a metal gas can found at the scene used to connect Hobley to the arson was planted. He long contended he was a torture victim, too.

• Orange, 52, was sentenced to die for taking part in the stabbing of his former girlfriend, her 10-year-old son and two others. The conviction came despite Orange's description of torture and testimony that his half brother, Leonard Kidd, was the one who stabbed the victims. Kidd, also on death row, claims he too was tortured into confessing.

• Howard, 40, was convicted in a 1987 murder and also contended he had been tortured.

They "four men did not know each other," Ryan said, "all getting beaten and tortured and convicted on the same basis of the confessions that they allegedly provided. They are perfect examples of what is so terribly broken about our system."

---

"The four pardoned men are part of the so-called "Burge 10" death row inmates who say they had confessions tortured out of them by police under the direction of Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge. He was fired after internal police investigators found systemic evidence of physical abuse of suspects. "


That's the whole point of our system: the law protects you from abuse. Burge committed a crime himself, and was fired from his job. In many non-western countries, Burge would have been promoted.

It didn't protect those guys from abuse, now did it? And we're talking about something that went on for years before it was finally brought out into the open. Yes, he was fired. Were the police officers who beat the suspects into confessing fired? It doesn't say. Probably not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z80

Why do american govoment hate there black people for? Do most white americans hate there black people too? If you do, I propose a swap. We'll have your black fellows, and you can have ours!

---

The American government does not systematically hate black people, nor do most white people. But there is lingering racism in our country. Blacks make up a disproportionate percent of the poor, and therefore commit more crimes per capita, because poor people commit more crimes such as robbery and murder.

Black poverty is a legacy of our slave-owning past, and some very poor political choices in the 1960s. At the same time as we were freeing black Americans from segregation, we instituted welfare policies that gave extra money to unwed mothers with children. Instead of helping that particular group, the policy ended giving economic incentives to join the group. As a result, the core black family structure, which had survived slavery, lynchings, racism, and segragation, was destroyed by do-gooders seeking to help them. There was an explosion of unwed mothers in the black community, and the culture of welfare became predominant.

Only in the last 20 years have black Americans moved back in positive direction. But gangs and violence still plague the inner cities. And racism is still endemic in the South, even though it is muted as each new cohort of babies is born, raised, and exposed to the popular culture of diversity.

I think the number of unwed mothers and illegitimate children has more to do with their shitty economic situation and poor sexual education than this fabulous and luxurious lifestyle of living off public welfare that you seem to believe exists (which doesn't). My brother's girlfriend's mother is on welfare and she gets about $120 a month on top of the pittance she is paid as a a full-time nurse's assistant (when it's available; she went down to Hartford to collect it in November and they told her the office was out of allocated funds for the year and she'd have to come back in January). Maybe I'm just overlooking the crystal chandelier and Ming vases whenever I go into their apartment in the slums. My favorite quote from people opposed to welfare is that after the 1996 Welfare Reform act the number of welfare recipients declined. Well, no kidding, geniuses. If you restrict the number of people eligible for a program, of course the number of people participating in it is going to decrease. And hey! If I tie a rubber band around my arm, I've successfully lowered my blood pressure in that limb!

How the hell could anyone live off $120 a month. Hell at least our sh1ty welfare system you get about $200 a week, and it's more or less reliable.

Well, it isn't meant for living off of. It's a supplement to regular income.

Yerh. Besides, with thousands on welfare, I had better get back to work. There all depending on me.

Yes, your annual pennies count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

I think the number of unwed mothers and illegitimate children has more to do with their @@@@ economic situation and poor sexual education than this fabulous and luxurious lifestyle of living off public welfare that you seem to believe exists (which doesn't).

---

I never said that living off welfare was "luxurious".

Think about it this way: a poor woman on welfare with 2 children out of wedlock meets a nice man. Does she marry him? The answer is often no, because if she DOES marry him, she loses benefits. And there's no disincentive to having more kids out of wedlock, because her payments will go up. Heck, if she already has the clothes, etc., having another kid might increase her net worth!

It's not saying that it's a large amount of money, it's that getting married involves a pay cut, thus preventing marriage. If you're poor, you'll do everything you can to maximize your net income, including avoiding marriage and having children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

I think the number of unwed mothers and illegitimate children has more to do with their @@@@ economic situation and poor sexual education than this fabulous and luxurious lifestyle of living off public welfare that you seem to believe exists (which doesn't).

---

I never said that living off welfare was "luxurious".

Think about it this way: a poor woman on welfare with 2 children out of wedlock meets a nice man. Does she marry him? The answer is often no, because if she DOES marry him, she loses benefits. And there's no disincentive to having more kids out of wedlock, because her payments will go up. Heck, if she already has the clothes, etc., having another kid might increase her net worth!

---

I think most poor women on welfare with 2 children would KILL to meet a nice man to marry. For one thing, they could use the increased income from the spouse. If these women aren't married, it's probably because most men won't even date women who have children let alone think of marrying them.

Quote:

---

It's not saying that it's a large amount of money, it's that getting married involves a pay cut, thus preventing marriage. If you're poor, you'll do everything you can to maximize your net income, including avoiding marriage and having children.

---

No it doesn't. Getting married means two sources of income combined. If she's getting his income and hers (most likely this is going to double the household income) why the hell would she need $1200 in welfare assistance? A poor person is much better off married than single, because two salaries paying one set of bills is better than one salary plus welfare. You can't possibly be below the poverty level if you believe otherwise. I think you must have lived in the middle class or higher your entire life to have such a distorted and inaccurate impression of how we live. Also, having children in a marriage IS an incentive for the poor. It means we get to claim more dependents and child credits on our income tax returns, which usually means a refund greater than what we paid into the system in the first place.

My first girl friend had a kid.

I loved it, and still have contact with her and her kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

I think the number of unwed mothers and illegitimate children has more to do with their @@@@ economic situation and poor sexual education than this fabulous and luxurious lifestyle of living off public welfare that you seem to believe exists (which doesn't).

---

I never said that living off welfare was "luxurious".

Think about it this way: a poor woman on welfare with 2 children out of wedlock meets a nice man. Does she marry him? The answer is often no, because if she DOES marry him, she loses benefits. And there's no disincentive to having more kids out of wedlock, because her payments will go up. Heck, if she already has the clothes, etc., having another kid might increase her net worth!

---

I think most poor women on welfare with 2 children would KILL to meet a nice man to marry. For one thing, they could use the increased income from the spouse. If these women aren't married, it's probably because most men won't even date women who have children let alone think of marrying them.

Quote:

---

It's not saying that it's a large amount of money, it's that getting married involves a pay cut, thus preventing marriage. If you're poor, you'll do everything you can to maximize your net income, including avoiding marriage and having children.

---

No it doesn't. Getting married means two sources of income combined. If she's getting his income and hers (most likely this is going to double the household income) why the hell would she need $1200 in welfare assistance? A poor person is much better off married than single, because two salaries paying one set of bills is better than one salary plus welfare. You can't possibly be below the poverty level if you believe otherwise. I think you must have lived in the middle class or higher your entire life to have such a distorted and inaccurate impression of how we live. Also, having children in a marriage IS an incentive for the poor. It means we get to claim more dependents and child credits on our income tax returns, which usually means a refund greater than what we paid into the system in the first place.

---

No, getting married does NOT mean 2 sources of income combined. It means ONE source of income (his), as her welfare will be cut off. Since his income will now have to support 4, instead of supporting only himself plus the bit he gives to help her, he takes the largest cut.

As a result, couples are economically encouraged NOT to marry. And if they move in together and want to merge finances, they'll be "common-law" married, and again will lose benefits. So in all those border-line cases where the couple might or might not marry, they end up not married.

i know that noone is even talking about vocab and memorize anymore, but i learned a cool trick in german class... i dont know if it will work in russian alphabet... but take about 6 or 7 words... and take the first letter of each word for example туда, дог, реклама, бой, кид,ман,пооп,кандий, ataman and фантикий keep in mind only like 3 of these words is russian. anyways... memorize all 6 of the words, so u can say them in any order, this takes between 5 and 7 minutes... then make up other words with the first letter of each word for example

Ф.a.р.т. and then u will go Fantiki ataman reklama and tuda... and when making up other smaller words is the time to learn the translations... use the same 5 to 10 words untill u can say any word in any order, try to make small sentences so u wontever forget... *maybe this wouldave worked better if i used real words* =P sorri bad example 8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaa

No, getting married does NOT mean 2 sources of income combined. It means ONE source of income (his), as her welfare will be cut off. Since his income will now have to support 4, instead of supporting only himself plus the bit he gives to help her, he takes the largest cut.

As a result, couples are economically encouraged NOT to marry. And if they move in together and want to merge finances, they'll be "common-law" married, and again will lose benefits. So in all those border-line cases where the couple might or might not marry, they end up not married.

---

I wasn't aware you were talking about a woman who has no job. Personally, I've never met a single woman who has two kids and is unemployed for more than two or three weeks. The low amount of welfare people actually receive and the limited time it is available prevent such things from happening. Maybe if they got enough to pay all of their bills each month it would encourage them not to go to work, however as I understand the welfare system (at least in Connecticut), the amount is much smaller than the average cost of living. Maybe wherever you live it's a great deal more. I doubt it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike

:o I have some better advice: If you see an elephant walking around outside your house, stick Бегу to yourself.

---

Or <<Мышь>> :wink:

…or "Моська"

[Edited by self]

Don't be surprised if you will be banned soon

You're right. I've been there already.