this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
669 points (97.6% liked)
Greentext
4740 readers
1355 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That isn't entirely correct, the layer of mucous around the egg is called the bloom - it isn't shit that protects the egg. The bloom actually protects the egg from bacteria that live in the chicken shit, and washing them removes that layer of mucous . Even still, the likelihood of getting salmonella from a supermarket egg is like 1 in 20k or something like that.
Source: I have chickens.
spujb is not an idiot, I made a mistake
Lol I never claimed it is.
But if there's shit on the egg, it strongly implies they haven't been washed and thus have an intact bloom.
Not in Finland. That high percentages, that is.
Oh, my mistake then.
Did you think In was suggesting the shit itself is somehow protective? I didn't assume that people would assume that, my mistake.
I thought the implication was obvious.
Like if I said "I've had a very sensual weekend. Your mom says to say hi." You could probably understand the implication and wouldn't just think your mom has accidentally rang me up as a wrong number only to say hello to you, would you?
Idk man, look at the words you write after you write them - don't expect me to read between the lines of your incorrectly expressed thought.
Yeah. The presence of shit shows they're not washed.
Unwashed eggs don't need refrigeration.
No-one else thought I was claiming shit has protective properties, so perhaps you should consider that you might be mistaken in who has expressed what incorrectly.
It isn't my fault that your literary skills aren't as good as your chicken farming skills.
Okay imagine you and a good friend often get to go cruising in your mom's car when she's not using it. One day you tell them, "Mom's gonna be home all weekend, that's why we can go to the party we didn't have a ride to".
But huh. Wait a minute? How does your mom staying at home mean you suddenly get to go somewhere? Huh? Your friend would definitely be mighty confused and ask you to try expressing your thoughts more clearly, wouldn't they? Right? Becsuse how on Earth would your mom sitting on a sofa mean your travel problem is gone? She's sitting. Still. At home. How is it relevant?
Edit autocorrect mistakes
Stop.
Use English correctly or don't, I don't care.
There's no need to be ashamed just because you didn't know something as simple as what an implication is.
I'm sure you can figure out that "might be mistakenly in.." is obviously the phone's autocorrect correcting an adjective to an adverb. Same with "would" to "wouldn't."
You could've just avoided answering, but felt some sort of compulsion to, because you don't like that I pointed out a mistake you made. It's very understandable, I remember feeling the same occasionally as a teen.
However it is a bit ironic that you would try to pretend that I'm the less literate one when you didn't know what an implication is.
You added good information to the thread, like the part I was referring to being called "the bloom". Thanks fo4 that. But no-one thought I was saying eating shit is healthy, I'm sure.
The implication is that you think chicken shit protects eggs. That is what your words said, that is what they implicate.
You can argue what you meant until the stars die. It doesn't change anything.
No, that's what you inferred from them, incorrectly.
Exactly. Everyone here knows what I meant, except you, who wanted to boast with their chicken expertise, so you had to pretend as if I had meant that excrement is protective. And it would be exceedingly hilariously of you to tell me what I meant with my words.
We all know how strong a disgust reflex shit causes. We know it's not healthy to eat it. Thats why — for the the majority of us — that can be left as an implication.
You can pretend until the stats side indeed. You'll still be wrong.
Got it buddy, you definitely know English better than I do. Continue on, definitely speaking English clearly and correctly.
Are you pretending you don't understand that autocorrect obviously changed "stars die" to "stats side", when I'm painfully obviously copying your earlier message?
You're pretending that autocorrect mistakes have something to do with linguistic capacity?
Alright. Did you infer or imply that? ;>
I read what I write after I write it.
Unlike you, clearly, which is why you have "typos". Though, at this point, I'm genuinely convinced you're AI.
I've pointed out why you're wrong, you've decided to argue. You are wrong, every English teacher will tell you you're wrong, and anyone that can write in English correctly will tell you you're wrong.
Silence, now. Before I link you the wikipedia definition of Dunning-Kruger.
Then god you're shit at detecting LLM's and attempts at insults. There's plenty of checkers you know. Go ahead and run my comments thorough them, hunny.
Yes I often comment quickly late at night and dont care to proofread. I'm not ashamed of it on Lemmy. For anything that matters I do proofread ofc.
That doesn't mean I don't have a better grasp on English than you. It just means I'm less anal.
Not a single one will. You'd like to argue that, since you don't understand how well you're demonstrating ignorance of how "implication" and "infer" even differ.
You've inferred something which I did not imply.
https://www.scribbr.com/commonly-confused-words/infer-vs-imply/
See mine is an implication. If I had meant the shit is protective in itself, then that would be an explicit statement, and not an implicit one.
I can't even keep count of how many "native speakers" I end up teaching English to. It's somewhat amusing.
Oh you should definitely go and open that Dunning-Kruger link. You're at the dip you'll see in the graphs, I wager. Confidently pretending you understand linguistics, when you probably slept through your English lessons.
You, neither, inferred nor implied that the chickenshit was responsible.
You explicitly stated it. I am not giving you an English lesson, you do not know what infer or imply means if you think saying "and that's why" is anything other than a direct statement.
Edit: Tagged. I'll be sure to point out how wrong you are if I see you around.
I did not.
I stated that my eggs have shit on them (implication being they're not washed) and thus they don't need to be refrigerated.
Who and above all why would reason that I am asserting that the eggs I have but can't spot visible shit on, I refrigerate? "My eggs have shit on them" isn't the same as "all my eggs are covered in shit, and for that reason, none of them need to be refrigerated".
You're arguing that a text can't have implied something if YOU didn't infer the same thing.
So when someone tells a joke and others laugh and you don't, do you tell the person who told the joke they told it wrong and everyone else is wrong to laugh and youre the one who's correct because you didn't laugh?
If I told you "your mom says hi", would you think your mom at home just happened to say the word "hi", or would you read that as me saying I'm fucking your mom? Honest answers now. :)
Bike=2, sunshine=5, lawyer=4, biscuit=4, car=2. what is keyboard?
So you know if you don't clown around and try to give a proper answer, it'll show you're wrong, so you just pretend like you weren't serious at any point by spamming utter gibberish.
Very mature.
Well, you're welcome for the English lesson. Seems like you at least tried learning the concepts.
Jax you are absolutely in the wrong on this and Dasus’ only sin is the cringe of engaging with you, far more embarrassing for you lol
when you misunderstand someone and they correct you, apologize, listen to what they have to say, and provide a suggestion for how they might better express the thought later if you want
My water has minerals in it and that is why stains are left on things that have water dry on them.
My soil has good nutrients and that is why mushrooms are active.
My eggs have chickenshit on them and that is why they don't need refrigeration.
Good to know, I'll have you tagged as a fucking idiot as well. By the way, don't listen to this person: the ratio is still 7:1 in terms of shelf life. Refrigerated vs unrefrigerated, respectively. Not only are they bad at English, they're just fucking wrong.
sorry i get defensive when people insult me, comment deleted
You know what, it's early and I was mad. I'm sorry. I did not understand what I was seeing.
Edit: about calling spujb an idiot, my point still stands about "that is why".
no worries :) hope you have a good one
Well since you can't point to a single mistake I've made and don't understand the difference between "infer" and "imply", yes, I think I do have a better grasp on English than you.