I am really sorry for not being able to support my claim as it is. I said 60% but can no longer find that old news anymore. But I did find another link:
Here is the full list of my falsehood:
Sorry for the sarcasm with the falsehood thingy, I do this when someone makes me search and turn pages after pages for a long time to prove a challenger not he was wrong, but for me not to look stupid. lol
By the way, I am Canadian and "Fox News" is not our cup of coffee or very little, I personally do not know anyone who watches that. Wrong thinking there as we hate that channel with passion, yes I generalized again but it is true to say Brits love the Queen as we hate Fox News. ;) Do I have to mention that both sides have exceptions? LOL
Does Canada actually get Fox News? I saw several articles online this year saying Fox news is not allowed in Canada due to their frequently false and/or misleading reporting.
I never looked into the accuracy of these articles though because just the thought of Fox being banned anywhere makes me happy in the pants.
Yes, Fox News is available in Canada.
That article is not correct. It wasn't a question of allowing the station; it was a question of categorization. Basically, Sun News (informally referred to as 'Fox News North') wanted to be categorized such that cable/ satellite television providers would be required to deliver it. This was rejected by the CRTC. Sun News is currently an existing station in Canada, though. Fox News is also available in Canada.
We use to have it, I use to watch it for a while and I am sure they are still around because we have all the big and not so big American channels, plus a lot of news channels from Vermont, New York and Massachusetts. But to tell you the truth I am not current with TV stuff anymore so I do not know exactly what of Fox News is sent here, because I am sure it is not sent integrally as it was back then.
While in the abusage thread, I can't help but tell you that the expression should be "used to have" not "use to have."
Sadly, Faux News is available in Canada. It shouldn't be, though.
"Unique" is an absolute meaning "one of a kind" or "nothing else like it anywhere, ever." It can't really be qualified. Thus, "somewhat unique" or "very unique" are nonsensical substitutions for more applicable expressions like "rare" or "very uncommon" or "extremely exceptional."
- the only one or sole example
- having no like or equal
- not typical; unusual
I was talking to a young woman on the phone about volunteering for her organization. She ran down a series of questions with me and to each of my rather pedestrian answers her reply was "awesome." This is a word which means "inspiring awe or dread" (or some such). It is a word to be reserved for special occasions, not as a substitute for "I see," "okay," or "cool."
I am also guilty of overusing the word awesome and forcing the evolution of this word to include "cool".
Louis C.K. has a really funny bit on how people sound and the overuse of several words like "hilarious." First couple minutes... audio only... NSFW language