Whining vs. whinging

[impulsenine]

According to my dictionary, "Whinging" is "To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner."

Is this the same thing as whining? I've never, ever heard this word (and I'm well-read thanks to a librarian wife) except for on this forum.

[-SDU-]

^ yeah, in the context that i use them thats how i mean them

threadworthy tho?

your wifes a librarian hey....., is it true what the movies show?

shes a nerd by day but after work throws off the glasses, takes the chopsticks out of her hair, flicks her head back and then looks like cindy crawford?

kidding bro haha

[Cash]

Keep in mind that our friends who live on the wrong side of the planet tend to use many incorrect (read: British) colloquialisms. And then they have the nerve to tell us that WE'RE the ones who are wrong! Yeah, right! An American, wrong about anything? I think not. Sheesh, just because the English invented the language, they act like they own it.

[JustMoe]

Keep in mind that our friends who live on the wrong side of the planet tend to use many incorrect (read: British) colloquialisms. And then they have the nerve to tell us that WE'RE the ones who are wrong! Yeah, right! An American, wrong about anything? I think not. Sheesh, just because the English invented the language, they act like they own it.

Best (aka funniest) post I read in a while

And I DO think this is thread-worthy since NeverFear used that word before, as well, and even though I thought that whinging=whining it's still typical Aussie weirdo stuff that has to be pointed out. Bring in the pillory, b**ches!

[TASTIC]

Hey hey hey now, us colloquials talk england good and everythink

[-SDU-]

get yourselves an edumacation peoples

whining IS a proper word, NOT a colloquialism, so Cash your post kinda became a bit redundant there chief

whining is defined as below

whin

[impulsenine]

shes a nerd by day but after work throws off the glasses, takes the chopsticks out of her hair, flicks her head back and then looks like cindy crawford?

Except she just uses regular hair ties, yes, that's about right.

Keep in mind that our friends who live on the wrong side of the planet tend to use many incorrect (read: British) colloquialisms.

Actually, American English (especially our accent) is closer to 'original' British English of the 1500s and 1600s than current Brits; Americans were a much more conservative (i.e., religiously fundamentalist fanatic) group of people when they came to the colonies, and so the language evolved more slowly for about 200 years.

So all those films set between 1500-1800 England should probably be voiced by Americans.

That's what my wife said, anyway; I'm sure I got some parts a bit wrong.

... and now you know. *jingle*

[Cash]

^^^^I've heard similar things, but with the reasoning more along the lines that England's population is so much smaller, it's quicker/easier for the language to change. That really wouldn't have come into play until the Industrial Revolution or so, but it does make sense prima facie.

SDU, you actually got it backwards. I was alleging that "whinging" is not a proper word. Everyone knows "whining" has to be correct, because that's what Americans say. Duh. You chumps in the Commonwealth need everything explained to you, huh?

Off-topic, but related to this thread's topic: Do Aussies and/or Kiwis spell it "grey" or "gray"? I usually spell it "grey," even though it's supposed to be spelled the other way up here. Another question for the Southern Hemispherios: How do you stay attached to the Earth down there, since gravity is pointing the wrong way? I assume every object is equipped with seatbelts and grab-straps, but what about when you're walking from one place to another? Magnet boots, maybe?

[eastsidecrossover]

magnet boots!!!!!!!!!!!! classic! One of the best post ever cash.

[KJ7]

I spell it "grey".

Hang on a sec, I need to put on my magnet boots and ride Skippy down to the milkbar, brb.

Speaking of differences in cultures (and sorry to get completely off track) I was reading some articles today about Obama/Hilary. How on Earth do Americans vote in their leaders. I was reading something along the lines that you have to be a "participant" of that party to be able to vote for a leader is that right?

[TASTIC]

I'm outta shrimps

[Cash]

I spell it "grey".

Hang on a sec, I need to put on my magnet boots and ride Skippy down to the milkbar, brb.

Speaking of differences in cultures (and sorry to get completely off track) I was reading some articles today about Obama/Hilary. How on Earth do Americans vote in their leaders. I was reading something along the lines that you have to be a "participant" of that party to be able to vote for a leader is that right?

Sort of. Right now, both parties are having their primaries, where they choose their candidate for the general election. Anyone can vote in the general election, but you usually have to be a member of a party to vote in that party's primary. So you don't have to be a participant of a party to vote for the leader of the country, but you do have to be a participant of a party to vote for that party's candidate to become leader of the country. Make sense?

[impulsenine]

...and the whole thing is a big circus.

[KJ7]

Sort of. Right now, both parties are having their primaries, where they choose their candidate for the general election. Anyone can vote in the general election, but you usually have to be a member of a party to vote in that party's primary. So you don't have to be a participant of a party to vote for the leader of the country, but you do have to be a participant of a party to vote for that party's candidate to become leader of the country. Make sense?

Does being a member = being a participant?

How do you become a participant?

You see we don't do it this way. And I'm a bit fascinated by it. What's to stop there being some underhanded tactic by a group of opposition in electing the party's leader?

For example, say a number of Republican's became "participants" for the Democrats and voted for the candidate they thought had the worst chance of being elected in the General thereby helping the Republicans cause.

Since voting is confidential I'm assuming no-ones checking whether participants from one party are actually voting for that party when the General election comes around. Anything stopping this from happening?

Furthermore it's not even compulsory to vote so I'm assuming you can vote in the Primary and then not even vote in the General right?

[impulsenine]

What's to stop there being some underhanded tactic by a group of opposition in electing the party's leader?

Most people are registered as one party or another. You can switch, but since primaries for both parties are had on the same day, you can't vote for both parties. Some people (like myself) are registered as independents; I am in a state that bars independents from voting in primaries, but others do not and I'm not sure whether you'd be able to vote in both.

Furthermore it's not even compulsory to vote so I'm assuming you can vote in the Primary and then not even vote in the General right?

Possible but unlikely - most people who bother to vote in the primary are going to be interested enough to vote in the general election.

[Cash]

-= original quote snipped =-



Does being a member = being a participant?

How do you become a participant?

You see we don't do it this way. And I'm a bit fascinated by it. What's to stop there being some underhanded tactic by a group of opposition in electing the party's leader?

For example, say a number of Republican's became "participants" for the Democrats and voted for the candidate they thought had the worst chance of being elected in the General thereby helping the Republicans cause.

Since voting is confidential I'm assuming no-ones checking whether participants from one party are actually voting for that party when the General election comes around. Anything stopping this from happening?

Furthermore it's not even compulsory to vote so I'm assuming you can vote in the Primary and then not even vote in the General right?

Impulsenine covered some of this, but here goes:

What I mean by "being a member" is registering under that party. In order to vote, everyone needs to register at their local district. When you do so, you can register as a Democrat, Republican, some loser third party, or as an Independent. Anyone can register as anything, and you can switch before any election. Only the Dems and Republicans have primaries, and there's usually no way to vote in both primaries. (In Massachusetts, where I live, independents can vote in both primaries, but not for Presidential primaries.)

Theoretically, a bunch of Republicans could register as Democrats and try to screw up the primary, but there's two major problems with that. First, it would take MASSIVE numbers to make any difference. Especially because the primaries are all held state-by-state. And the results are weighted by how big each state is, so swinging a state like Alaska (which wouldn't take THAT many double agents) would have virtually no impact on the overall picture. Swinging California or Texas would be huge, but the numbers of double agents you'd need would be staggering.

The second problem is that any of these double agent Republicans would be giving up their chance to vote in their own primary. Most people would rather have a say in choosing the candidate of their own party than try to get a bad candidate from the other party in there.

[KJ7]

I guess if there was a major front-runner for say the Republicans and it was close for the Democrats a bunch could choose to switch and disrupt the Democrats electing their leader.

You're right about getting the numbers, but I was just wanting to know if it were even possible.

I didn't realise that it was done on the same day so I guess that takes a bit of the dodgy factor out of it.

[Never Fear 33 Is Here]

Just out of curiosity, who is whinging or whining in this debate/discussion?

[CroesusDeluxo]

Keep in mind that our friends who live on the wrong side of the planet tend to use many incorrect (read: British) colloquialisms. And then they have the nerve to tell us that WE'RE the ones who are wrong! Yeah, right! An American, wrong about anything? I think not. Sheesh, just because the English invented the language, they act like they own it.

the french concocted english using teutonic ingredients

[CroesusDeluxo]

-= original quote snipped =-

Theoretically, a bunch of Republicans could register as Democrats and try to screw up the primary

or, a bunch of republicans could orchestrate the nomination of a weaker candidate and then after the weaker candidate's nomination reveal his running mate's illegally acquired medical records.

(nixon helped get mcgovern nominated- DONT VOTE ITS DUMB)