background preloader


Amazing — incredible, unbelievable, improbable, fabulous, wonderful, fantastic, astonishing, astounding, extraordinary Anger — enrage, infuriate, arouse, nettle, exasperate, inflame, madden Angry — mad, furious, enraged, excited, wrathful, indignant, exasperated, aroused, inflamed Answer — reply, respond, retort, acknowledge Ask– — question, inquire of, seek information from, put a question to, demand, request, expect, inquire, query, interrogate, examine, quiz Awful — dreadful, terrible, abominable, bad, poor, unpleasant Beautiful — pretty, lovely, handsome, attractive, gorgeous, dazzling, splendid, magnificent, comely, fair, ravishing, graceful, elegant, fine, exquisite, aesthetic, pleasing, shapely, delicate, stunning, glorious, heavenly, resplendent, radiant, glowing, blooming, sparkling Begin — start, open, launch, initiate, commence, inaugurate, originate Break — fracture, rupture, shatter, smash, wreck, crash, demolish, atomize Come — approach, advance, near, arrive, reach Image courtesy:

Related:  verbatim

16 Government Types - Infographic Facts 16 Government Types The Way Governments Works Полиглот. Выучить английский язык за 16 часов! Интеллектуальное реалити шоу телеканала «Культура», интенсивный обучающий видео курс «Полиглот» представляет собой 16 занятий – уроков английского языка, целью которого является научиться говорить по-английски. Разработчиком этой уникальной системы, а также преподавателем во время всех занятий является Дмитрий Петров – известный в России лингвист, переводчик, полиглот, владеющий тридцатью языками. На занятиях присутствуют восемь учеников (являющиеся медийными лицами – телеведущие, режиссёры, актёры), которые практически не знают английский язык, разве что на уровне первоклассников средней школы. Но к концу курса, они уже смогут объясняться на английском языке, используя сложные и правильные словообороты. 1 Выпуск 2 Выпуск

Types of Reasoning Disciplines > Argument > Types of Reasoning Reasoning within an argument gives the rationale behind why one choice, for example should be selected over another. Types of reasoning include: Abduction: the process of creating explanatory hypotheses. Backwards Reasoning: Start from what you want and work back. Butterfly Logic: How people often argue. Сериал Друзья все сезоны смотреть онлайн на английском языке ДрузьяНа английском языке Все сезоны сериала Друзья онлайн на английском Смотрите онлайн все сезоны сериала Друзья на английском языке в хорошем качестве (HD) при этом абсолютно бесплатно.

Astronomy Answers: Coincidence Periods Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/CommonHTML/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js 1. Introduction At least 2500 years ago astronomers in Babylon discovered that solareclipses and lunar eclipses often recur under similar circumstances after 223 synodical months (counted according to the phases of the Moon, not according to the western calendar) or about 6585⅓ days. This period is nowadays called the saros. We call a series of eclipses that each occur one saros after the previous one a saros series.

Изучение английского языка. Godwin's law Mike Godwin (2010) Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" [2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's Law originally referred, specifically, to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles and other rhetoric.[5][6] In 2012, "Godwin's Law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[7] Corollaries and usage[edit]

Poe's law Confusion of parody and sincere expression Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.[1][2][3] The original statement, by Nathan Poe, read:[1] Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article. Origin[edit]