The statement is correct??
"The 24 year old (the ball player) inferred (guessed) that she (the lady) was going to bake Christmas cookies for her Grandchildren. "
It is not proper English if we are going to turn into the language police today...LOL... While the above definition is technically correct, the one who infers is also the one who is expressing something. You cannot silently, or take no action and infer something. Example:
Hey, I never told you I have been in jail......yes, but you inferred that. IOW.....it was something you did or said that caused be to logically deduce that you you were in jail.
So it was the grandmother who inferred something through her actions, and the football player who deduced a conclusion from the grandmother's inference....The football player inferred nothing at all...he deduced.
Whew....glad that's settled....Now we can go back to fighting over Trump vs. Cruz......
sorry @jerrydon10 the sentence is correct as it was written. Inferred does mean deduce. They are synonyms.
It was a clunky sentence, but correct. The author could have said: The 24 year old DEDUCED that she was going to bake Christmas cookies for her Grandchildren...
Same sentence, but clearer.
But anyway, you are right. Back to what matters...
December 4, 2015 at 10:09pm
zappa: “Just what is America reaping and just what as it sown?”
well lets see, for the last few years society (especially in california) has been constantly rejecting God and embracing sin. heck just look at the OT of the bible Israel was constantly going through cycles of:
being in God’s favor > doing evil > losing God’s favor > getting conquered > turning to god > gaining God’s favor and independence again > etc.
November 16, 2015 at 9:01pm
Dirt, you are right… you can’t get rid of those passages. however it is worth noting that when the laws are/were practiced it wasn’t some vigilante type system. for someone to even be sentenced to death for breaking those laws you would first have to find a court with the authority to sentence to death and that views the law in question. then you have to get 2 witnesses to testify in the court. it should also be noted that during the time of ancient Israel that with how they limited possible witnesses (someone known to hate you for example couldn’t testify against you), and how closely the cross examined the witnesses made it so the death penalty was very rarely given.
[-1] November 10, 2015 at 11:50pm
so then by your definition Hitler was moral…
November 10, 2015 at 11:44pm
Jesus was not saying that it was “okay to break the sabbath to help the ox” he was saying that it wasn’t breaking the sabbath to do “good”. you see the pharisees were putting too much emphasis on the traditions around the sabbath instead of focusing on the purpose of the sabbath, to the point of even doing good (like in this case healing a person’s hand) was considered breaking the sabbath.
and i would argue that if something violates it then it shouldn’t be done. then again i don’t know of a single instance in the US’s history where a politician would of had to choose between the bible and the law.
 November 8, 2015 at 12:00pm
Pub, no one is suggestin that they can’t protest racism. However when you sign a contract saying that you will play football in turn for your tuition being payed (what a football scholarship essential is) and then refuse to play football then should the school stop paying for their school?
 October 17, 2015 at 6:56pm
there is a small problem with that theory though. and that is in Gen. 2:18-23. lets look at what is talked about in these verses:
1.) God said “man should not be alone” and should have a helper
2.) God showed Adam all the living creatures (which would have included other humans if you were right).
3.) Adam found no suitable helper and so God made eve.
4.) Adam calls eve “woman” as she came out of ‘man’.
5.) if eve wasn’t the first woman than he would have already given a name to what she was and so wouldn’t be called woman.
the only logical conclusion is that the “man” and “woman” mentioned in Gen. 1 is the same “man” and “woman” in Gen. 2. the reason their creation is mentioned twice is because Gen. 1 is “the creation story” while Gen. 2 is “the creation of man”.
as for where cain’s wife came from? it would have been a sister. it leaves out how much time passed between able’s death and when he married and it is also entirely possible that at that time of able’s death they had sisters.
 September 29, 2015 at 11:12am
If he was getting hit by players he should have just kicked them off the field and if more of them did it then disqualify the team.
No, it would be far more interesting if he shot them.
Its one of those sports where the whole crowd could rush off the field and beat him silly. Not with a gun in his hand though. Not justifying it just understanding it.
Shoot them in the arm; they don't use them anyway.
Only a good, abused referee with a gun can stop bad, abusive soccer players.
Players and refs alike should have loaded guns when they play. It's the only think I can think of that might make Soccer interesting.
Witness your children's future if "we" do not get control of illegal immigration, A.K.A., invasion of our sovereign nation.
He was getting slapped and kicked? He was manhandled? LOL
These guys wouldn't make very good hockey players.
Don't they kill refs there?
Where are all these that say
"he's an off duty cop....you just don't get it".
I'd carry a gun too - You don't want to end up like this referee... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab6_1372968263
If he’s a cop, what about putting the offending players up on assault charges? Don’t they have laws against assault in Brazil? Call your buddies, the cops, and have them arrested for assault and battery. Simple. Plenty of video footage I’m sure to bolster you case.
Oh, I forgot……it’s Brazil.
Third worlders. Sheesh. Can’t live with them, and, can’t live with them.
 September 17, 2015 at 1:59pm
Blink: if it is the minority viewpoint then why did attempts to have states add amendments to their constitutions have to be beat in the courts instead of the ballots?
 September 17, 2015 at 1:52pm
Not to mention that through a good amount of the OT many of the nearby nations practiced things like infant sacrifice… not the greatest cultures you would want your people mingling with…
 September 17, 2015 at 1:44pm
Um… you do know adulterers aremail by definition already married right? And why wouldn’t she marry fornicators? There sin is having sexual relations outside of marriage, so by marrying they would no longer be “living in sin”. And what about athiests? Just because a person doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean their relationship is sinful
An adulterer is someone who has committed adultery. They would have to be divorced in order to get remarried, but again, they sinned and that's a big one. As for fornicators, I personally don't care, but it is a sexual/moral sin according to the bible, and she should at least have tried to make sure they had sought forgiveness/repented of the sin. An atheist does not in any way believe in 'holy matrimony' so why would she allow an atheist couple to have a license?
 September 16, 2015 at 7:13pm
“this is practically the same as Christians saying that others getting gay married somehow violates their own rights.”
there are a couple bakers and a florist that has shown it to be true…
September 3, 2015 at 2:21pm
It’s been a while since I’ve been in school but when I was most buses were kinda old and I assume maintaining seatbelts could get expensive for something that wasn’t even used on buses that had them
Dave......the interior of that bus looks fairly new. The seat belt law has been in effect for YEARS. I just don't understand why they don't put them in the buses being built now.
Many newer buses have seat belt and some school systems require every student use one,others just say they are available.
In most states seat belts are not required on any buses, school or otherwise.
 August 22, 2015 at 12:41pm
It is more of they don’t want history in the wrong context. Just like I am sure you would be against Hitler being there (if it wasn’t limited to Americans) as while we shouldn’t bury the history about him we also shouldn’t put him anywhere that could be viewed as honoring his achievements even though he did some good things.
 August 19, 2015 at 5:42pm
i think it is more about asking women to be aware of what their choice in clothing is doing to men not that they must be changed.
"Doing to men"
What is this Africa, India or the Middle East?
This is ALL a continuation of even the biblical,
a man is entitled "to rut and nut" 24/7 and women exist
only for sex, anytime, and anyhere.
The author's "Boys will be boys" mentality is quite
Why do you think they are not aware? If "awareness" is intended to guilt or otherwise coerce women into changing their dress it's the same goal or mentality dressed up (excuse the pun) in another outfit. And if behavioral change is not the intent, what exactly does "awareness" accomplish?
 August 18, 2015 at 6:53pm
mikeil: i think he is saying he just doesn’t want to hear about it. not that he shouldn’t be punished for it.
 August 17, 2015 at 10:17pm
Maggie: i would like to see where you got the idea that he is against abortion when not getting one will cause the woman to die. since to me it seems like the abortion would be a case of “killing in self defense” not to mention it would be a choose for the baby to die or the baby and it’s mother.
 August 17, 2015 at 12:47am
I am pretty sure there isn’t a person that would refuse a person from getting an abortion if not getting one would kill them, I would also like to point out thathat for the majority of human history a girl was an adult at around 10 and would be married to have kids of her own. So while the risk of major health problemservices is higher than if she was older, I am sure with modern medicine we can keep the risk down.