Jeff

I am reading the spanish translation of "Lluvia de Oro" and I have come across a usage that I am not familiar with--I would have thought it incorrect if I had not encountered it in a major publication. First, I am familiar with the typical uses of preterite subjunctive and the pluperfect in spanish, so please do not bother explaining those to me. This translation appears to be using the preterite subjunctive where I would expect the pluperfect to appear, and I have never encountered this usage in a grammar book or class. Is this an obscure usage or a regional/colloquial usage, or is there something triggering the subjunctive that I am missing here? Here are a few examples directly from the book (I have not come across the pluperfect in the book yet that I can recall):

La revolución empezó a llegar a su cañon tres meses antes que Lupe naciera.

...se sentó en duro y bien barrido suelo de tierra que su padre les hiciera.

...abrió la horquilla de madera que su hijo le hiciera con una rama de encino...

So the Large Hadron Collider has started up, so I can only assume that a black hole has already consumed our solar system. But my hallucination of the remaining world is convincingly realistic.

I mean, how do you know whether the world has ended or not? Is there some sort of a test? If you've ever woken up from a dream only to find that it actually was real, only to then wake up again and realize that the first time you only dreamed that you woke up, then you know what I'm talking about. You never know for sure if you really woke up or if you just dreamed it. I do notice that I can break certain laws of physics in my dreams, so when that happens, I typically know it's a dream. But the converse is not necessarily true, so we need to look for signs of broken physical laws and not the absense thereof to proove whether or not its a dream.

So my question to all of you is: have you seen any laws of physics broken today? Any signs that the world is no more? Anything?

Some think the world will end in 2012 cuz thats when the mayan calander ends, but mayans are like super old and probably didn't have very good maths. I'm really worried now because my modern calendar ends exactly on 31 December 2009. I mean, there's nothing at all after that--you turn the page and it's just a blank wall !!!! And that's the modernest calendar you can buy, computer accurate to milliseconds! It's got the official Hallmark stamp of accuracy on the back!

Is it inevitable, or is there some way of extending our existence?

People seem to be more prone to run in stairways. I am guilty of this too. There's just something about a stairway that makes me want to run--both up and down. I see other people do this too. There was even a comedy sketch on "Almost Live" many years ago about the office workers who only run in stairways.

I have a couple hypotheses: running up stairs is more comfortable than running on flat surfaces due to the way our legs work; running allows us to utilize the elasticity of our tendons to maximize our locomotive efficiency, stairs are more private than hallways and sidewalks, so we're less afraid to be seen running; or there is a primal instinct to run up stairs just like the instinct a hamster has in a wheel.

Of course, running down stairs is just more fun--that goes without saying, right?

What are your thoughts? Are there any studies out there on this phenomenon?

My high school once had a traveling edudrama presentation on "people of color". It featured many folks of Asian, African, and mixed race heritage, who complained about how they were being labeled. "Black" was described to be a misnomer, because nobody is truly black (the absence of color)--they are different shades of brown, a beautiful color in itself. African or Asian American was also explained to be an insult, because it implies that they are only half american, and many of them don't relate to Africa or Asia anymore. "I am fully American", one of them exclaimed. They all agreed that the only proper term to use was "person of color." It was this very emotional presentation.

OK, so many years later, I realize how much that presentation just confused me further. First of all, I don't remember if they ever touched on the issue of how to describe white people. I'm certainly not white in the physical definition of the color, and I most certainly don't come from nor associate myself with the Caucausus region Eurasia, so according to the same logic, I should be called neither white nor caucasian. Actually according to their logic, I have color as well--kind of a pinkish-tan color-- so I should be called a person of color. The truth is, I don't care, so call me what you want, but there is less discrimination in my ancestry, so I can't speak for others who share a different past. I have been short all my life, and I most certainly don't like being called "shorty". I think it has made me more aware of how rampant discrimination is, so I don't want to offend anyone.

I hear some people call themselves "African American" and some people call themselves "Black", and very occasionally, I hear the term "People of color". I sincerely and honestly try to use the least derogatory term. "People of color" seems to be OK for describing large groups of people from mixed backgrounds, but it is not descriptive at all. "America has many people of color." OK. But have you ever tried to describe someone you know to someone else? "You know, Joe, the person of color over there," you say. "Which person of color?" your friend asks, looking at a group that includes Indian, Asian, and African Americans. "Um, the, uh, you know, the uh black guy..." you say, blushing. And feel totally stupid. But you know what else sounds stupid? "The person of color over there with the black, tightly curled hair and thicker lips". Somehow that sounds pretty demeaning too.

The result of all of this is that most white people I know who try to respect all people just try to not refer to race at all. We refer to people instead. That's all fine and dandy, but eventually, it has to come up in conversation, for the same reason that your friend's hair color or height might come up in conversation--you're trying to describe the person to someone who might know him or her, or you are describing a situation that happened, etc. It always ends with this awkward conversation, where there's a lot of ums and uhs and then the word "black" is kind of quietly stumbled over when it becomes unavoidable to mention. When I describe myself, I tell people I'm the short guy (or short, white guy). It's just easier than trying to describe other less obvious features. So when I describe other people of color, I mostly use the term "black" and occasionally "African American", but I feel like one way or another I am insulting someone. I just feel that "black" and "white" are not meant literally or descriptively, they are just used to clarify race in certain instances.

OK, so my question is not specifically whether to use the term "black" or "African American" because I know I will get a lot of different answers, none right or wrong (though you're welcome to add your 2 cents as part of a discussion, but if you do, please address whether whites should be "white" or "caucasian" or "people without color"). My question is about how awkward this has all become:

1) anyone else see that traveling edudrama thing in the mid 90's, and are they still doing it? Is there a double standard in some of the arguments of that edudrama, and does that kind of thing just confuse people, or is it quality education?

2) If avoiding the race issue is the best way to go, when do I bring it up when describing someone? How do I do this without being awkward, and without insulting anyone. Since I can't please everyone with my terminology, does anyone really care that much about one term or the other as long as I mean well?

3) Does anyone think this whole thing has gotten really awkward? Or do you think it's almost funny when good-intentioned people fumble around and get all nervous when they are forced to say "black?" As a lighter-skinned and vertically-challenged American, I just want to be less awkward, while remaining respectful to all.

I have an exterior door that is sagging such that the weatherstripping no longer fits and the latch barely lines up with the plate anymore. It has enough "give" to lift it to where it should be. It appears that the "give" is within the hinge (I put 3" screws in the upper hinge to better secure and it made no difference)

There are some answers out there that are very non-scientific in this forum. I suppose that's freedom of speech, but I find it suspicious that many of these are getting voted as "best answer." Maybe I'm just being closed minded, but it makes me suspicious, especially when particularly weird users consistently get 3 votes. Could that be trolls with multiple accounts voting for themselves? Do we need better moderation in this forum? Should I be reporting suspicious activity, or should I only report clear-cut abuse?

I want to make a repair to my home plumbing and our new house is on a well system. There are two shut off valves between the well and the pressure tank/pressure switch, with a carbon filter in between. The pump is outside and underground. Logic tells me that if I close the shut-off valve and release pressure on the house side, then the switch will turn on the pump, even though the valve is shut. Wouldn't that damage something? I'm guessing the only way to work on plumbing is to cut the power to the pump before shutting one of the two main shut-off valves, then draining the tank? There is no main cut off on the house side of the tank & pressure switch. I'm guessing there are two valves to aid in changing the filter, though this does nothing for other repairs in the house? Does this setup sound very wrong to you?

I have a hose bib that goes through a block wall to the outside, and it looks like one of the frost-free types with the long stem. When I operate the hose, I see water wetting the blocks and running through the gravel on the ground below, but there is very little that I see dripping off the valve outside or at the copper elbow and adapter inside.

The only thing I can imagine is that there is some hole on the stem itself within the wall. I'm ready to replace the bib, but I'm having trouble imagining why it would leak apparently in the middle of the pipe where there shouldn't be any fitting. It looks like they mortared the hole in the block tight around the bib --could this have corroded a hole in the bib stem? Or is there a kind of stem that has a bleed valve halfway down (I have only seen solid stems at the HW store). I don't want to replace it to find out I misdiagnosed the prob, but I can't imagine a leaky washer causing the leak. Wouldn't it leak from the knob or faucet?

I used some of that GE Silicone II caulk for "kitchen and Bath" and it never cured. After some internet searching and calling their customer service hotline, I learned that some caulk just goes bad (can go bad if stored over 80 degrees F!!!) and never cures. Which means its a huge mess--you all should know what a mess silicone is before it cures. Sales rep says I have to scrape it all up and use isopropyl alcohold to clean up residue before recaulking. That will take me days to do---ARGH!!

So I ask whether there is a chemical that causes the curing--I know it usually smells like acetic acid (Sales rep corrected me that this type of caulk releases ammonia and methanol when curing) when curing. So I know there is some chemical reaction that happens during curing---i.e. it doesn't "dry". What happened to deactivate the caulk when it went bad, and can I spray it with a chemical (ammonia and methanol for example) to make it cure? Sales rep says no, but is that only for liability?