| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crusher_of_heads
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: kimbop and kimchi for kimberly!!!!
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nicholas_chiasson wrote: |
| The "Don't do it BOYS" thread doesn't do it for me. |
What can I say-it was editted to suit the Victorian tastes of some of the mods.
And that, The Dude, is absolutely undebatably 100% true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bryan
Joined: 29 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Why I why never date an American Woman...or a korean |
|
|
| nicholas_chiasson wrote: |
-2,789,432 Women single not in Seoul attractive and not married of age
Ok random statistic. How many Korean women will marry a foreigner? Watch 14% of Korean marriages were international in 2005. However only 12% of these marriages were to Americans. So let us say that 14% of Korean women would marry a foreigner. We will simply ignore the American statistic. So 390,520 women want to marry a white dude. I figure that using the rate of foreign marriage with a sample population, in which the sample population includes people who WANT to get get married I should get a reasonable finding |
This was stupid, even if this was all just in jest. Using the amount of Koreans who married a certain foreigner already to determine the amount of unmarried Koreans who are willing to marry you? The sample statistic does not show "willingness to marry foreigners" it shows willingness to marry a certain guy that they already married. It could be that 100% of the remaining population of Korean women are "willing to marry" Tom Cruise.
I hope 75% of Korean women outside of Seoul refuse to date guys who don't use paragraphs. Then you're in for real trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
Unless I misunderstand this (which is possible as I am no grammar expert) the subject of Justin Hale's dependent clause was initiating action (the people (who) struggle) and he was right to use "who." |
Agreed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
