Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Taco Pie or the mysterious Barquitos Pizza?

There is a reason why my title has the word 'mysterious' in it when referring to these hard-to-find pizza thingies called Barquitos, so let me try to explain. For one, it has been years since I had one of these (an altered taco pie like the one depicted here, maybe?), and even that was way back when I was in High School eating those random cafeteria lunches.  They used to only serve it on occasions, but it was a pleasant surprise when I would see it listed on the menu that day for lunch. It was like, "Yay!"

Anyway, when searching online for recipes for the long-lost barquitos of the past, I'm apparently not alone with this empty endeavor.  The short post I'm about to quote (and link to) below had multiple comments, all similar in their quest to solve this seemingly culinary unsolved mystery; ha!

Excerpt starts:

Tales of Pizza: Part Four: Barquitos
"When I was a young student of Richmond Public Schools, we were often served a very weird pizza-like dish called "barquitos" for lunch in the cafeterium (cafeteria+auditorium+gymnasium).  I have NEVER been able to find out anything about barquito pizza on the internet. I did however, find out that barquito means "little boat" in Spanish.

A barquito is basically a french bread pizza topped with seasoned taco meat (probably leftover lunch from the day before) and cheddar cheese.  I feel like maybe there was a similar dish with sloppy joe meat but who can really be sure. I have done my best to block out school lunch from my memories.

What is this dish? I only ever had it in elementary school. Is it the concoction of a lunch lady? Is it a real food item? What is a barquito?"
---Excerpt Ends

Okay, now back to my blog... After checking online for several more minutes, I'm yet to have any luck finding out an original recipe for the barquitos.  Do they even exist?  Is it just some made-up name that a multitude of schools across the nation gave this mystery pizza with debatable taco-related leftovers?

I did find several people claiming that the food-delivery truck known as Schwan's used to have a barquito product that was extremely tasty but they quit making them years ago.  Are the two types of barquitos related? Is all this hoopla & ballyhoo really about an old-fashioned taco pie with limited toppings?

Some people say it was seasoned taco meat with cheddar cheese and a cornbread like crust shaped like a pie.  Some folks say it had BBQ sauce on it, other people mention Mexican salsa or even pizza sauce, etc.  After taking all the stuff I read today into consideration, and after trying to recall what they looked and tasted like years ago, I'm thinking this mysterious barquitos pizza stuff was simply a modified taco pie. I do remember a Mexican kinda taste with a different kinda crust - leaning more to cornmeal and less towards regular flour - but I'm not sure about the sauce in the middle.  Chili sauce, maybe? Hmmmm...

At any rate, I'm going to just link to a blog that shows how to make a taco pie, instead.  Each individual can modify it as they deem necessary to make whatever kind of imaginary barquito pizzas that floats your boat.  Ha-ha!
Image Credit: Provided in the link above

---End of Post "Taco Pie or the mysterious Barquitos Pizza?"

Monday, November 7, 2016

Water Vapor: The History of Steam Power

From the beloved Q & A Section of HubPages, I recently asked the question: "In your opinion, which alternative energy source is the most efficient?" ...Although I was hoping to get more answers, preferably ones that related to some of the more experimental or hypothetical sources of energy, many types were still brought up. In fact, although nobody mentioned it on that page besides me, it inspired me to write yet another web page (the other one is on another blog of mine) about Zero Point Energy.
Anyway, that's a totally different subject nonetheless...

Hydropower (water power) is well known for being a great energy source, so I decided to dig a little deeper and check out the history of steam power to pick up a few more tidbits about the use of water vapor, and so on, since all of these relate to water and power. But just so you know, I do realize that there is a big difference between "steam power" and "hydropower." Hydropower or water power is power derived from the energy of falling water and running water, which may be harnessed for useful purposes. Since ancient times, hydropower has been used for irrigation and the operation of various mechanical devices, such as watermills, sawmills, textile mills, dock cranes, domestic lifts, power houses and paint making. Since the early 20th century, the term is used almost exclusively in conjunction with the modern development of hydro-electric power, which allowed use of distant energy sources. But regardless of the differences, I feel that I can mention water vapor, steam power, hydropower and hydro-electric power, all in the same post; ha!

Although the power of steam was not harnessed until the 17th century, scientists had understood its potential for hundreds of years. Yes, no matter what many of you may think, people from long ago were not all ignorant apes and yes, we can't blame all of our technological advancements on the space monkeys, also known as "aliens." Where was I? Oh... Way back from 1st century, the Greek scientist Hero of Alexandria had discussed a device, the aeolipile, that shown the possibilities of water vapor. The aeolipile worked by heating water in a mounted sphere that had two bent nozzles. When steam was released through the nozzles, the sphere would rotate. Although it had no practical use at the time, this was the first indication of experiments with steam power. From this point, you should obviously realize just how compound-knowledge works when it comes to inventions: always building and correcting and getting better, etc. ...Although there are many times today, I often think that certain types of technology is moving backwards or making some people even more stupid, but once again, that's a totally different subject, so lets move forward...

When it come to the efficient use of water vapor, steam power had more dramatic developments in the 17th century, when the first boiler was invented. This sucker was little more than a pressure cooker, but from that point in history, a steady flow of innovations followed. Oh, if you are wondering about the boiler thingy, it was in 1679 when French inventor Denis Papin designed a device that could convert liquid to vapor.

By the 18th century, engineers had realized how steam-powered devices could be used to pump water out of mines, as this was a pretty big deal to say the least, considering the growing demand for coal in Europe during the Industrial Revolution. If you'd like to read more about steam power during the Industrial Revolution, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_power_during_the_Industrial_Revolution

From there, scientists began to realize that water vapor and/or steam could also be used to power engines. As depicted above, Thomas Newcomen had invented a steam engine in 1712, but it was the improvements made by James Watt that made the device more efficient. Watt's key innovation consisted of condensing steam, so that the engine did not need to heat and cool the cylinder. ...Stumbling on just a bit from there, steam power was, of course, being used to power fuel ships, locomotives, etc.

By the 19th century, this useful thing we call water vapor was being used to produce electricity and is still used today. The 20th century really amped it up a bit, as geothermal power stations, steam turbines, and nuclear power entered the scene.

Going back into history, and for a few additional tidbits (reference note: Timelines of History, The Story of Steam Power), in 1769-70, the steam car arrives. From France, Nicholas Cugot invents a road vehicle that can run on steam. Now, how fast this thing could go, I don't know. I doubt if it would have won many car races of today, but that's just a guess; ha!

This next tidbit is interesting... In 1819, The US vessel Savannah becomes the first ship to cross the Atlantic using steam power along with sails. The era of using sails, ends soon after.

In addition to developing the world's first steam railroad locomotive, the English engineer Richard Trevithick also adapted his high-pressure engine for use in iron mills and steam-powered barges.

I suppose I could write more about this subject and perhaps dig up a few more facts and interesting tidbits, but the point is made. Although I won't say that Hydropower is the most efficient power source known to man, especially since I think many great inventions have been suppressed in the past that used means that were not accepted by the greedy, one thing is for sure: we live on a water planet, so why not use it to the fullest!

Image of a Steam/Thermal Power Station:
[A steam/thermal power station uses heat energy generated from burning coal to produce electrical energy. This type of power station is widely used around the world.]

Additional Reading:
In addition to this, you may also want to research the history of cooling towers, while we're on this H2O subject. Cooling towers originated out of the development in the 19th century of condensers for use with the steam engine. Condensers use relatively cool water by way of various means, to condense the steam coming out of the pistons or turbines. This reduces the back pressure, which in turn reduces the steam consumption, and thus the fuel consumption, while at the same time increasing power and recycling boiler-water. To read more about this along with many other aspects of this particular water & steam technology, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_tower

Steam Electric Station:
[Both reactors and cooling towers at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station south of Shickshinny, Pennsylvania. Category: Nuclear power stations in the United States.]
Video: Steam Power - The Timeless Force
World Record for Steam Locomotive
Additional Tidbit related to Steam Power:
Mallard (the steam locomotive shown above) is the holder of the world speed record for steam locomotives at 125.88 mph. Wow! That is pretty fast for a train, eh? The record was achieved on July 3rd, 1938 on the slight downward grade of Stoke Bank south of Grantham on the East Coast Main Line. It broke the German 002's 1936 record of 124.5 mph. Well, I thought it would be a good idea to add an additional tidbit to this sluggish post, you know, to combat some of the boring subjects that were discussed prior to this; ha-ha!

---End of Post "Water Vapor: The History of Steam Power"

Semi-related Link: Do they make bicycle-based generators?

Friday, November 4, 2016

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) vs. Google AdSense Revenue


Amazon Mechanical Turk, often referred to as MTurk, is a crowdsourcing marketplace on the world wide web that allows individuals and businesses to utilize so-called "human intelligence" (Ha!) to perform tasks that computers are currently unable to perform. The people or businesses that post these daunting, tedious, often mind-numbing, silly jobs/tasks for poor pay, are called the Requesters. The jobs that the employers/requesters post and/or upload into this particular MTurk crowdsourcing marketplace are called HITs, which stand for Human Intelligence Tasks.
There is no need for me to provide an intro for Google AdSense, as I'm assuming most of y'all are familiar with what it consists of. When it comes to the money that Google's beloved advertising program can bring, only the readers can truly know how it performs for them individually. With that being said, I see no point in making wild assumptions about the average revenue it generally brings to the typical blogger, writer, etc. As for myself, Google AdSense equates to my classic phrase, "typing poppycock for pennies," but that's just me...

What type of work can you do on MTurk? Are there any easy jobs?

There is a large variety of HITs on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The marketplace is clustered with seemingly endless supplies of tasks. As for the second question: Yes. There are loads of easy jobs on there. This is especially good news for the ones that enjoy working for under 1 dollar an hour albeit there are some decent paying HITs on there, as well.
An example of some of the HITs you will have available to you, are: transcribing images, transcribing shopping receipts, transcribing business cards, transcribing audios, searching data details, taking various types of surveys, writing product descriptions, secret shopper tasks, taking part in psychological studies, identifying hidden affiliate URLs, writing comments and forum posts on other websites, writing short articles, and so on and so forth and whatnot. [Too many tasks to list.]
Out of all the HITs I mentioned above, along with many of the jobs I didn't list, so far it seems that the highest paying gigs on Amazon Mechanical Turk is the transcribing of audio files. Yeah, the audio transcriptions pay really well per job, but I'm yet to see that it's really worth the headache and time involved. It would be much more worth the time if the majority of the audio files didn't sound like they were recorded inside a barrel that was submerged underwater or in a noisy atmosphere with static and/or crazed distortions, to say the least! If you would like to read more concerning how people feel about their revenue from the 'transcribing audio files' option on MTurk, visit this guy's comment field, here: http://waxy.org/2008/09/audio_transcription_with_mechanical_turk/
Random tidbits from Wikipedia: "The service was initially invented by Peter Cohen for Amazon's internal use, to find duplicates among its web pages describing products. MTurk was launched publicly on November 2, 2005. Following its launch, the Mechanical Turk user base grew quickly. In early- to mid-November 2005, there were tens of thousands of jobs, all of them uploaded to the system by Amazon itself for some of its internal tasks that required human intelligence. Most of these were related to music CD items. HIT types have expanded to include transcribing, rating, image tagging, surveys, and writing." Read more, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Mechanical_Turk
As you can see, this particular marketplace from Amazon has exploded since its inception. In poorer countries, making 2 to 3 dollars an hour is decent revenue. However, it might be a bit of a strain to complete numerous asinine tasks online, hour after hour, just to make 2, 3 or even 5 dollars an hour. You will hear of some people making way more than that, but they usually don't deduct the time it takes to find each task nor do they do it full-time. Many times there will only be so many high-paying jobs listed on a daily basis, just saying...

How does Google AdSense Revenue relate to this article?

I'm glad you asked because I'm 70% done with this article and I've hardly even mentioned it. However, since the title of this page is "Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) vs. Google AdSense Revenue," I might need to type the words out a few more times for SEO reasons??? But seriously, talking about the money a person can make from the AdSense program is about as meaningless to this MTurk article as me bickering about all the reasons why the article-submit site known as HubPages, sucks; ha!

Is there any advantageous services I could use to help me make money on MTurk?

Actually, there is. First of all, Amazon Mechanical Turk is not a scam, but there will always be scammers, if that makes any sense to ya. One of the best Browser Ad-Ons for this service is called "Turkoptican." It works great with FireFox and Chrome browsers, and the instructions for this tool can be found here: https://turkopticon.ucsd.edu/
The Turkoptican can show you if the Requesters have had any reported violations, how they rate with payout, promptness, etc. It is a really good tool because it helps prevent you from getting ripped off, rejected, and so on. Speaking of that, you want a high approval rating for your completed HITs, which in turn will increase your availability for higher paying jobs, later on. This is why it is not a bad idea to take a lot of the easier, lower paying tasks at first, until you build up your ratings. From there, you can take qualification tests to open up even more jobs, etc.
Besides that popular browser ad-on, there are other advantageous services you could use. I'm sure there are more ad-ons to use, but there are additional websites, forums and communities out there that involve posting the hottest jobs, the scammer requesters to lookout for, and other tidbits of advice. I'm not going to bother researching for a URL list, but it's easy to find online, if you're interested.

What is the best way to use MTurk?

This is entirely up to you. If you are really desperate for cash and you have a bank account, you may want to power through as many jobs as possible, 8 to 16 hours a day. Wow! If that is the case, more power to you!
I'd say the best way to use the Mechanical Turk for most folks, is to just use it in your spare time - so you can avoid getting burnt out. Even if you don't want to worry with frequent bank transfers, you can use the money you build up on your MTurk account to shop with on Amazon. As you all should be aware, Amazon basically sells a bit of everything, so it wouldn't be hard to find stuff to purchase.
Now, here is where the Google AdSense revenue comparison gets involved. Let's say you own a few blogs/websites and/or have published several low-traffic Hubs on here. Hypothetically, let's say you average between 25 cents and 2 dollars a day with Google AdSense. Well, you could easily make that on MTurk every day just by checking in for 5 to 50 minutes and completing a couple tasks and/or a couple surveys. Hmm... It just depends on how seriously you take your online money, I suppose...

---End of Post "Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) vs. Google AdSense Revenue"

Wild Game: Have you ever tried eating Kangaroo Meat?

Originally, I was going to place this query within the Q & A section @ HubPages (I no longer publish there anymore), but when my question went over the seemingly ridiculous restricted word limit, I thought I would make a quick post about it, instead. So, the reason why this page isn't packed with lots of awesome info and the word count isn't high, is because this is more of a Q & A style post, although I'll try to make it a bit more. In a thumbnail, I'd like your input about wild game, why or if you think it is healthier, which is your favorite and, most of all, what do you think about eating Kangaroo meat... You can share some odd recipes or some freaky marinade secrets for all I care, as there are certain cultures out there that can make many meats that you'd think weren't edible, taste good - well, so I hear, anyway.
Quick reminder: I'm not eating snake or any other type of reptile, so please spare me from the reptilian tidbits; ha!

Anyway, I've thought for many years how wild game is so much more healthier for you, even before the majority of the public became abundantly aware of all the chemicals, hormones, etc., that is being pumped into the common meats found at local supermarkets. When it comes to wild game, though, I've only ate rabbit, squirrel and deer on rare occasions. On the other hand, I've ate many wild-caught fish, but I don't think that relates to this particular subject. Even though I think wild game is healthier, I fall for convenience and usually buy lean cuts of beef, chicken and pork from the local grocery store. On a side note, I have bought local farm-raised cow before and steer clear from certain "fresh" meats that are injected with chemicals and never seem to ruin, and I also try to avoid sodium-nitrite laced processed meats, as much as possible.

At any rate, what made me think about eating Kangaroo meat, although I've never tried it, was Australia. I was thinking of all the possible cool places to live on this planet, and when Australia came to mind I couldn't help but think of hot weather and Kangaroo burgers. The area sounds nice, lots of wildlife, scenery, etc., but I like my cold, cheap American beer and rib-eye steak, boneless pork chops, chicken leg quarters, and so on. With that thought in mind, I thought I'd ask this question in case somebody has some pointers on how to cook this stuff and/or how it tastes compared to beef, deer, etc., in the event that I ever get in the mood to try several exotic meats, not that the Australians think Kangaroo meat is exotic or anything; ha! I figure that it probably tastes like deer, sort of tough, and needs a good marinade like Worcestershire sauce or something.

I recently read that Kangaroo meat is exported to over 55 countries worldwide. Wow! Those wild suckers really hop around!

Both the meat and the hides are sold from this type of meaty marsupial, although most species of macropod are protected from game hunting by law (except a small number of the overly populated, larger-sized species). Of course, this doesn't make some of the animal rights activists very happy, to say the least. But then again, there's support from a broad range of professional ecologists in Australia - groups such as the Ecological Society of Australia, for example. Per Wikipedia: "Such groups argue that basing agricultural production systems on native animals rather than introduced livestock like sheep (bah-ha-ha) offers considerable ecological advantages to the fragile Australian rangelands and could save greenhouse gas emissions."

So, now that we got that out of the way, what else do those Australians eat for wild game meat? ... Holy cow! I just stumbled upon a Bandicoot Soup recipe while searching online! If you're wondering, a bandicoot is a small Australian marsupial that looks like a rat, kangaroo and opossum - all wrapped into one mini rodent-looking creature. Dang, I guess some people really will eat anything if cooked properly. Well, I think I'll hold on the soup recipe...

Now, lets go back to the Kangaroo... I just checked on the web while using the keywords "how to cook Kangaroo meat" and it appears that I assumed right, in that the meat would be tough if not cooked properly due to it being extra lean, and generally most cuts would need a good soak in a tasty marinade beforehand to help tenderize and add flavor. I keep reading about how it should be cooked quickly and not to exceed medium-rare for most cuts, blah, blah. Okay, I just learned that "Kanga Banga" is kangaroo sausage. Hmm, I wonder if they add pork fat to that? I know when I was a butcher, I'd add pork fat to deer meat so I could make deer sausage, and I'd add beef fat to deer meat so I could make deer burgers, and so on.

Additional Resources for the post "Wild Game: Have you ever tried eating Kangaroo Meat?"

Related Links:
...Smoked kangaroo fillet, Kangaroo Fritz, Kangaroo mettwurst, Kangaroo pepperoni, Kangaroo kabana, uh, okay, that's enough reading on Kangaroo cuisines. If you'd like to find a cooking guide for such things, visit: Wild Oz (link has been deactivated).
Although he lost me with all the stuff he cooked with it, If you'd like to check out this guy's kangaroo roast dinner, go here: http://sixthseal.com/2013/04/how-to-cook-kangaroo-meat-a-kangaroo-roast-dinner/
* How to Cook Kangaroo Meat
Well, there you have it; cheers!

Playful Image:
Funny Image - Relaxed Kangaroo:

---End of Post "Wild Game: Have you ever tried eating Kangaroo Meat?"

Grammar Laws: 5 English Lessons for Writing Poppycock Online


This lengthy post will contain 5 separate blog-style posts that I recently removed from another community website. Don't take it the wrong way, though; I'm far from a Grammar Nazi, to say the least! However, there are some occasional English laws that I feel either need to be fractured or, in some cases, strictly obeyed. At any rate, when writing poppycock for pennies online, the main objective is to convey your thoughts, ideas, opinions, and information. Regardless of how trivial this "article" is, I felt the need to plaster this lighthearted verbiage somewhere, so here we are. Each individual post will be entitled the way it was originally written over at the failing site known as "Bubblews." [A micro-blogging site that doesn't exist anymore]

Why can't people be more succinct, terse or concise?

Yes, I realize that the primary words in my title are all synonymous to each other, but that is not the point. LOL! But seriously, how many people out there get annoyed by the ones that take 10 paragraphs to say what you could easily say in one or two sentences? I'm sure we have all met these type of people before, but I am curious about how many people are bothered by this besides me. I don't have many pet peeves, as they say, but this is one of mine.
When somebody runs to town, for example, and tells me what all has happened to them on their journey or whatever (when they get back), I really detest the idea of me having to listen to 3,000 words when at the end of all the inane chatter, I'll say something like: "Yeah, so the restaurant was crowded and the cashier got confused and gave you the wrong order because not many people order take-out during rush-hour; gottcha!"

For yet another out of the millions of examples, I once worked with a person that would always "have a story" to tell. Well, here would be his typical introductory convo piece: "Okay, hey. Yo! You guys got to hear this. Well, it goes something like this. Alright, this is kinda the way it happened. Yep, here it goes. Now, it started something like this... Oh, but make sure you listen to everything closely. Okay, I'll start with the main part first..." Yikes! Is there a button I can hit that represents pulling your hair out!? I mean, it is like "get the shit out of your mouth and lets get on with it already!"

This topic is so vast, I'm ending it right here or else my point will no longer be succinct, terse or concise! LOL!

Image Credit: www.creativeuncut.com/webcomic/pixies-pub-comic0086.html

---End of Post "Why can't people be more succinct, terse or concise?"

The 'Comma Splice' is Overrated

I stumbled across this subject tonight, while reading a post that involved somebody chattering about people confusing certain words with others, etc. The post was amusing in a bad way, since it had its own typographical issues and whatnot. Personally, I don't care about strict grammatical laws in the slightest, except when they are being spewed out by people that need to be paying more attention to their own writing and lack of creativity, etc. When it comes to English laws, I break them all the time - on purpose. Anybody that knows anything about this current form of English, realizes that it isn't stagnant nor held hostage by wanna-be grammar Nazis and so forth. Anyway, another silly subject arose tonight and it was about the beloved comma splices.

Their standard bible quote for the comma splice rule is: If you have a main clause (something that can stand alone as a sentence) and you put a comma after it, what comes after that comma should not also be able to stand alone as its own sentence. Personally, I think it depends on the shortness of the clause and how well it goes together. In my opinion, it is a combination of a style-choice along with some basic common sense. Thankfully, I'm not alone here. The page I'm about to link to, used this as one of the sub-headings: "The Exceptions Are Enough to Drive You Crazy." LOL!

Here's an example of the type of overrated crap these so-called "grammar gurus" argue about: "It’s not a comet, it’s a meteor." Wow! What's the big deal? I think that sentence looks totally fine to me.
Here's another popular example: "Man proposes, God disposes." Once again, in my opinion, that sentence looks good to me!

The 'comma splice' fanatics think you should type multiple 1 or 2-word sentences all over your page, evidently. You know, stuff like this: "Hey. I came. I saw. I conquered. Save money. Live better." LOL! Does that not look retarded or what? Yeah, but there is no comma splice involved, ya know? Ha!

Anyway, if you'd like to read a fairly elaborate page about this, go here:

---End of Post "The 'Comma Splice' is Overrated"

Beside or besides the point?

I rarely think of asinine things like grammar laws, but when I do, I realize even more why I don't normally think about asinine grammar laws. LOL! Anyway, on my last post, I used the phrase "besides the point," but a few minutes later, I wondered how many wanna-be grammatical gurus would tell me that it should be "beside the point." Thankfully, I haven't had this debate yet, so I thought I'd start one here; ha!

I mean, when I first hear this phrase it totally sounds correct to say "beside the point," but my gut instinct tells me that it should be "besides the point," so therefore that is the way I roll...
Going by the dictionary, I was correct by saying 'besides' instead of 'beside' albeit I couldn't care less in real life about any of this mess. However, since everything is online here, I feel that it matters somehow or to at least someone out there, whether they think they have a one-up in linguistics or not. I'm not an English professional and I do good to type a coherent statement or string a few sentences together to form those daunting paragraphs that are filled with poppycock, at times. In real life, I specialize in slang and profanity and, for whatever reason, I seem to remain proud of those very same primitive facts that help keep me in my utmost pristine-like caveman condition. : )

At any rate, I'm online right now and I'm going to pretend to be smart. I would really like to know the correct fundamentals here, though. The term 'beside' is referring to a location and the term 'besides' can act as a preposition and means 'other than' or 'together with' or 'in addition to' and so on. Yes! That's what I mean when I say "besides the point." Why people argue over this silly stuff, still amazes me today!

---End of Post "Beside or besides the point?"

It is 'at least' not 'atleast'

You will rarely catch me talking about stupid grammar laws and whatnot, as I believe in the freedom of style and the 'artistic license' concepts, and so on. However, this 'atleast' stuff really gets on my nerves. I've seen many people over the years continuously use this crazed word as if it's some type of accepted diction. Is it?

The words 'at least' does represent two separate terms, and there is no reason to purposely type the doltish, imbecilic word 'atleast'. The least I can do is upload this asinine post into the world wide web while hoping that the very least it accomplishes (outside of making me a few nickels), is help at least one person tonight realize this simple actuality. Ha-ha!

I wonder what is causing this? Is it the fact that the word 'alright' and the words 'all right' are alright to use?
The same thing applies to the words 'a lot' since it's not 'alot'... You see what I mean?

In summary: I hope that you never use the feign word 'atleast' or 'alot' because at least you can't say that I didn't tell you a lot within this post. Is that alright? LOL!

---End of Post "It is 'at least' not 'atleast'"

It is correct to use 'Literally' when it is not 'Literal'?

I really dislike typing about English lessons and whatnot, especially since I'm not an admitted guru of such things. However, over the last few months, I have seen several self-professed grammatical gurus falsely hammer down on some people for supposedly using the word 'literally' incorrectly. Tonight, I seen another person post about this, although she wasn't being arrogant like the ones I seen in the past. At any English-based rate, they are wrong for trying to correct these people.

Yeah, it is always funny when somebody writes a post about correcting others, when they are actually the ones that are wrong. Ha-ha! I will briefly explain, with factual evidence (it is called a dictionary, in case you didn't know), why it is correct to use the term 'literally' when it is not a literal situation.

Merriam-Webster doesn't lie, and it can be your friend, if you let it. There are two primary definitions for the adverb known as literally: 1) Actually 2) Virtually
Now, the adjective 'literal' has three definitions albeit only one relates to something meaning 'actual' like it is some type of a matter-of-fact diction. Instead of filling this post up with senseless definitions, let's go back to the term in question, which is the word 'literally'...

Okay, the first definition is what, evidently, some people think it can only mean. However, the 2nd definition states that literally can also mean virtually. Let's break it down, shall we? Virtually can mean: 1) almost entirely : nearly 2) for all practical purposes
Even the example this definition gave in my dictionary was "literally poured out new ideas." You know, as in the ideas were not literally pouring out actually, but for all practical purposes, they were virtually pouring out. So as you can see, it is not incorrect to use the word 'literally' when it is not a 'literal' situation. Duh! I hope this post helped at least one person out there that is under fire for supposedly using the word 'literally' incorrectly when they are, in fact, actually correct. LOL!

---End of Post "It is correct to use Literally when it is not Literal"


Well, I hope some of y'all enjoyed my minuscule online collection of 5 little blog posts that were under the English Lessons / Grammar Laws genre. Hopefully, I won't have to write any more trivial poppycock within this particular niche anymore, though, but it was fun to try something different for a whole minute; cheers!

Out of the 5 English Lessons posted above, which one do you feel the strongest about?

---End of Post "Grammar Laws: 5 English Lessons for Writing Poppycock Online"