Affect vs effect would be based on context here; for affect would be if they were affecting something, for effect would essentially be for the results.
Rather, affect is to change, effect is the result of change.
So, for affect would be correct because what they do is utilize wordplay to affect the result.
Or something, I'm too tired. It sounds complicated but it isn't as complicated as it sounds, it's just annoying for a lot of situations like this where both seem to be correct depending on how you are phrasing it
No no, let them label it. Maybe normie Canadians will realize "wow if they call this an insurrection then maybe the Jan 6 thing wasn't an insurrection after all, and the media lied to me."
They have changed the definition of mandate and force. To be honest, I have no idea what THEY think it means. If the rule is, take the vaccine, or else..... That is a forced mandate. If you don't do "X" then "Y" will happen is a forced mandate. Full stop.
"Mandate" comes from the Latin word "mandatum," which means "command," which implies you must do something just because they say so. If there was a law, it would be cited.
They have the hyphen in the wrong place. It's anti (vax mandate) not (anti-vax) mandate.
Incomptent or sneaky?
Should be "anti-vax-mandate trucker protest".
Edit: Even better -- protest against vax mandates by truckers. People have forgotten prepositions and proper English word order.
'Journalists' have a pathological desire to remove every possible 'small linking' word. ('The', 'that', etc.)
You know, the words that help to clarify everything.
Without these words, almost every headline can read more than one way.
Sometimes, they can be read 180 degrees opposite of the facts.
Classic:
"Let's eat grandma!" | "Let's eat, grandma!"
Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
From the book on grammar.
They forgot nothing. Bad actors playing with words for affect! (Effect? Shit I never know)
Affect vs effect would be based on context here; for affect would be if they were affecting something, for effect would essentially be for the results.
Rather, affect is to change, effect is the result of change.
So, for affect would be correct because what they do is utilize wordplay to affect the result.
Or something, I'm too tired. It sounds complicated but it isn't as complicated as it sounds, it's just annoying for a lot of situations like this where both seem to be correct depending on how you are phrasing it
Since you asked: For effect. To affect (verb). An effect (noun).
An-ti-va-x-m-and-at-e
Considering they printed a headline earlier today that mentioned 112 year age group for schools, I would err on the former with these muppets.
In newspeak, ‘protest’ is now ‘insurrection’.
Unless it's an insurrection, in which case they call it a 'protest',
Are you sure it's not an erection?
A "nationwide insurrection", isn't that just called the will of the people?
No no, let them label it. Maybe normie Canadians will realize "wow if they call this an insurrection then maybe the Jan 6 thing wasn't an insurrection after all, and the media lied to me."
I just posted the same question, didn’t see yours…. So they are admitting it’s Nationwide!!
It's redundant according to Webster's (year old) definition of anti-vaxxer.
That's true
They have changed the definition of mandate and force. To be honest, I have no idea what THEY think it means. If the rule is, take the vaccine, or else..... That is a forced mandate. If you don't do "X" then "Y" will happen is a forced mandate. Full stop.
"Mandate" comes from the Latin word "mandatum," which means "command," which implies you must do something just because they say so. If there was a law, it would be cited.
InSuReCtIoN
When does a “nationwide insurrection” become “the will of the people”?
Ottawa police are apparently EXEMPT from the injections...