Juke Nibi!

J'ai lu les règles d'élision et je les ai presque tous comprises. Toutefois, il y en a une où je ne peux pas "dénicher" aucune différence. Voici l'exemple :

...Les voyelles a et e, de même que i pour ce qui est de la conjonction si suivie du pronom sujet il, étant les seules à pouvoir être élidées, il est à noter que :

Le i de qui n’est jamais élidé. Il ne faut pas confondre que et qui notamment lorsqu’il s’agit d’utiliser une apostrophe. Comparez :

« La photo qui illustre cette page » et « La page qu’illustre cette photo...».

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(typograph...

Je n'y trouve aucune différence, moi ! Donc, pourquoi est-ce qu'on utilise élision dans la seconde phrase mais pas dans la première, si on ne peut pas faire élision du pronom relatif "qui" ? C'est un "que" peut-être? Je suis perdu.

Merci en avance pour votre aide.

I mean in the streets/area around it.

Metal street poles, glass coverings, fire extinguishers... Is it some sort of hazing ritual?

It is a very common adage that men and women cannot be friends. From this urban aphorism it is immediately concluded that it is the male who is responsible for this. But is it really true?

I decided some months ago to perform a personal experiment. As I am no longer interested in romantic or long-term relationships, and thus possess no apprehensions or fears of failure or rejection, I made it a point to approach women completely at ease and with no sentimentality or sexual lust polluting my behavior, to see what happens.

What I found out was surprising.

With women that showed no interest in my approaches, it was clear they did not want any kind of friendship. Yes, they said the right things like "let's be friends" or suggested we could have coffee or text on occasion, but the truth is they never initiated contact and never wanted to really talk to me. It was predictably a way to softly reject me, or to not seem rude.

This result for that group makes sense really.

The 2nd is much more shocking however. Women that seem to show interest for something further, aside from smiling all the time and playing with their hair, made all efforts possible to have one-on-one time, either at their jobs or by texting. Obviously they laughed at all my jokes even if the sucked, they pro-actively texted me, and showed great pathos and concern for even small things that affected my day. Now I never really indicated to them I was interested in anything, I was just being quite friendly and showed an interest in talking to them further.

BUT... the vast majority, after some weeks of the same and me "not making a move", suddenly (always suddenly), would cease contact. I would wait and wait but they would not text. I would go to where they work but always find them behind a counter and unable to leave their post. And most telling, in about 1 in 3 cases I would eventually see them with another guy, when clearly they were not dating when I first met them as I had never seen them with that guy, then suddenly he was "there".

Now, I understand why the first group shunned me and the 2nd group eventually eschewed me... But that still does not explain why in either case (both uninterested or interested women), they did not make further attempts to be my friend. Remember, we are talking about situations outside school, work, or social gathering... thus it is incumbent upon either me or the other person to keep the acquaintance active, as no meeting opportunity forcefully occurs.

Does this prove that it is not just men that can't be friends, but that women are just as guilty of this result? It seems that unless the man is gay, they cannot really hold male friends outside school, work, or any situation of "common interest", because either they are not interested in the guy, or eventually seem to grow tired of the guy not making a move.

Thoughts?

Just when I thought I had read it all, I read something new.

It turns out, according to the revealing answers I just read within a question asking whether Pujols has pulled a "LeBron" (pejoratively), that the consensus was he did not. Why? According to the respondents, that is because Pujols left the Cardinals, who were so loyal to him, because of money. Therefore that is more decorous than leaving your team in order to try to be part of a championship squad.

Was it not just a couple of years ago that players were being upbraided or even excoriated for supposedly only taking into consideration money and contracts?

Boy, I'm beginning to believe that many here are: either conflated and have significant difficulties sorting out their own positions within the same theme (so which is it, money or winning?), or they are shifty about their replies in a desultory fashion, perhaps due to the fact they still hold an enervating hatred for anything Miami, which inadvertently suffuses their comments when a topic involving South Florida arises.

I guarantee you had Pujols signed with the Miami Marlins, he too would have been fleered and burned at the stake, just like LeBron was; in many cases by sequacious "fans". Yet since he is going to the Angels, all is well and no surreptitious activity is presumed. At some point, bygones must be bygones and life goes on. The most important thing is to retain some semblance of objectivity...

I am (back) in southern Florida.

I was walking in the middle of the afternoon out in 110 degree heat and sun, 2pm or so.... and suddenly I see this fly (it didn't look like an average mosquito, a bit darker with much shorter legs), around my shoulder. Then I see it again near my leg.

It's at this point I start getting itchy all over. Within 3 minutes I had no less than 8 mosquito-like bites (they looked like it and itched like it).

My question is, should I be worried? I have never in my life (a) had mosquito bites in such heat in the middle of the day in Florida, (b) so many in such a short span AND that (3) one always heres mosquitoes are not active in the heat (only dusk). Could it have been something else...

Anyone heard of something like that?

Und wo stecken sie?

z.B. wie der peruanische Indio-Stamm.

Está corriendo la voz —por internet, radio y otros medios— para que todos los que siguen el fútbol argentino comenzáremos un boicot a partir del próximo torneo que arrancará en agosto, en las categorías de primera y nacional B. El objetivo es frenar la completa y total destrucción del fútbol de este país de parte del criminal delincuente llamado Julio Grondona, cuya nefasta administración ya ha tirado por el piso el prestigio de todas las selecciones nacionales (mayor, sub y olímpica), y ahora tiene en su lúgruba mira una nueva víctima: la destrucción de los clubes del país con el incomprehensible mamarracho que han votado engendrar bajo el nombre de ''reforma del fútbol argentino''.

Todos sabemos que este plan completamente hueco ha sido diseñado sin sapiencia y con apresuramiento para salvar a ciertos clubes de la pérdida de categoría, por lo que no tiene el más mínimo propósito de mejorar el fútbol del país en su conjunto. Solo sirve los intereses de unos contados corruptos impresentables que deben ser destituidos inmediatamente de sus cargos, comenzando por el presidente de AFA en sí.

Verdaderas reformas hubiesen sido limpiar el fútbol de los delincuentes y violentos, sanear las cuentas financieras, mejorar la formación arbitral, eliminar torneos innecesarios, federalizar verdaderamente AFA y terminar con clubes directa e indirectamente asociados. Reformar el promedio y terminar con las promociones. Verdaderas reformas.

Lo anunciado como tal no es más que la más caradura y macabra maniobra mafiosa, confabulada porque por años se le hubo permitido a estos energúmenos de Grondona y compañía reinar sobre AFA como un feudo mediaval, a dedo y capricho, lo cual hoy desembocó en semejante monstruosidad.

Que dicen todos...¿Boicoteamos el fútbol argentino para salvarlo? El que apoyare la propuesta que dejare saberlo y si no por favor que explicare sus motivos.

1. Primer Copa América que México cosecha cero puntos.

2. Primera vez que Brasil erra 4 penales.

Creo que eso y el campeón.... nada más.

:)

Auch... Brasil... choram, choram.

¡Qué Agosto que va a tener mi ciudad! Un año lleno de fútbol en Mendoza con la copa y con River debutando en la B en esta ciudad.

Cuando juegan contra Argentina selección (la primera) y clubes argentinos en final de Libertadores (los segundos).

Estas estadísticas no son mías, busquenlas:

México no le gana un partido de eliminación a Argentina en selección mayor mínimo desde 1993 (20 años casi), y seguramente mucho más allá en el pasado. Y eso que han tenido MUCHOS enfrentamientos en finales y semis de Copa América y mundiales.

Equipos brasileros no le ganan una final a equipo argentino desde 1974 o sea, 40 años!!! Increíble pero cierto, y eso que se han enfrentado muchas veces en final de libertadores.

Lo que significa que, tomando las estadísticas de edad de población, casi un 50% de los 100 millones de mexicanos NUNCA han visto a México eliminar a Argentina en un torneo, y un 80% de los 200 millones de brasileros JAMAS han visto un club de su país dar vuelta olímpica de Libertadores contra un equipo argentino.

Estas rachas aún siguen y no parece que terminarán en los próximos tiempos.

Toda mi vida he visto a Boca, Velez, Estudiantes alzar copas Libertadores en Brasil... no he visto que sean derrotados. Invencibles ante los cariocas. Igual con la selección mayor ante México, son como dioses que no fallan contra la selección azteca. Si jugamos se sabe que ganamos.

¿Cuando amigos? Eso es una grave y humillante sequía.

Entré a este sitio y están quedando como gente con muy poca educación y auto-estima, ya que estar al tanto del fracaso de otros es señal segura de la falta de capacidad de uno mismo en tener éxito (personal o como grupo). Yo tenía la impresión que eran dos paises que estaban desarrollandose (por las noticias que leo), pero al parecer en materia de desarrollo individual o cultural siguen firmes anclados al 3er mundo.

Interesantemente estoy de acuerdo que Argentina no es potencia a nivel selección hoy en día, pero eso no quiere decir que no vuelva a serlo.

Eu sou argentino e no jogo com a Colômbia os jogadores não faziam sacrifício, não corriam, não punham perna...

Hoje veio a mesma coisa com a equipe brasileira, jogam só andando...

Esses jogadores são europeus, esse é o problema.

That's it.

They allow questions like ''my penis size'' and ''are all democrats or republicans nazis or communists'', but if one puts a question where they want to exchange knowledge with another peson, it is erased.

Has yahoo answers become a joke and nothing more than a public message board for misfits, ignorants and hormonal tweens?

So if they win a championship this year it will be the hardest one because they have a very thin bench that has it's two worthy players (Miller and Haslem) injured. People keep talking about the Celtics injuries but a big part of Miami's gamble with the big three was to have a guy like Miller and a rebounder like Haslem and neither have been healthy.

So Wades and James HAVE to play well every nite to win, just like they did when they in separate teams.

IF next year Miami gets a guy like Pittman to become a center with a presence and get 5-10 points from, and if Miller gets healthy him plus James Jones, and Haslem healhy, and maybe another free agent in the summer, then perhaps it could be said that Miami has a solid team around D and L that would make it easier for them.

But this season, If they don't play Miami doesn't win. If they win it all it will be because of their high level of play.

Regardless whether you are a uncompromising hater or an evanescent band-wagoner one has to arrive at the conclusion that the basketball gods seem to be enraged against the Heat right now.

It started when rumors surfaced that Carlos Arroyo was to be cleared to make room for Mike Bibby, on the weekend before the Knicks' game.

Since then, a conflagration of incredible misfortune has plagued this team. You may say they are not a great team, and that is quite a plausible argument, however... To lose a game the way it was lost against the Knicks was a combination of great opponent play but also bad bounces. Remember that halftime shot by the Knicks... that is just sheer fortune.

To follow that up with a disastrous 24 foundering against Orlando, in which Orlando also played well, but they too, had an almost supernatural round of good fortune from the three arc.

And then San Antonio... at one point in that game, (a statistic provided by Sun Sports), the magic and Spurs where hitting 74% from the THREE POINT LINE.

74% from downtown. That is utterly incomprehensible, I don't care how bad of a defensive team you are, such a figure quite honestly makes you wonder if there is a conspiracy at work.

Chicago today... again, not one shot would go for Miami. I mean I don't care how bastardy unlucky you are, if you put up 17 game tying or winning shots, you will make at least 5 or 6 of them by PROBABILITY, they are professional players and shooting 6% is not exactly acceptable.

So, teams hitting 70% from three point land, Miami 1-17 (6%) in last chance shots. Such numbers are, simply put, not normal or open to being rational in any shape or form.

Besides their obvious weaknesses, are the Heat experiencing the worst bout of bad luck in professional sports in the last year?