#newcontion

There's a fundamental difference between "proving one's existence" (your words) and "the...proof of one's existence" (the words used in the quote itself).

Nowhere in that statement does it imply that a person's knowledge of said remembrance after they're gone is the point being made.

The only thing it's getting at is how, for the most part, our bodies won't last very long after our passing, so as proof of one's existence, they don't work well. Same would go for anything tangible; everything weathers, nothing is permanent.

Why does this not surprise me?

newcontion replied to your post: crap. i’ve had a purple “revolt” t-shirt that i made, for four years now. i hope people don’t think i’m supporting his channel

At least the Cougar has some good music, of his own creation, to his name. Puffy Daddy only bastardizes other people's music, or rides better artists' coattails.

Since you were the second person to mention this (the other did so through a message), I figured I'd respond:

Yes, you are correct, "PCH" is an initialism.

No, I'm not, nor was I as I composed that post, ignorant to what an initialism is.

Yes, I'm a fan of grammar, and of its proper use.

Yes, as you and the other one both stated, this post is about multiple meanings.

No, I couldn't care any less about the distinction between an "initialism" and an "acronym" in regards to this post.

As it stands, though many of my followers are quite learned and would no doubt know what I meant if I had titled my original post "Initialisms", I'm equally certain that the post got my point across, and that is the purpose of writing.

As is the case on any occasion where I'm shown to be, or proven, wrong (or at least not completely correct), I've taken the opportunity to look into the matter further and came across this engaging article. Among other things, if you read it, you'll learn more about "shit" than you likely ever knew before. It does pay to note, however, that even within this article, "acronym" and "initialism" are used somewhat interchangeably, except for a parenthetical notation part of the way through the article that mentions that "purists would not call even that an acronym; to them it is an 'initialism.'"

Your comment about his “blaccent" gave me reason to watch the video again, so I’m not really complaining. I never got the impression that he had any sort of affectation in his accent, and I still don’t. You’ve said similar things about other singers before, so I don’t put too much stock in it. If you care to give specific examples, then feel free, but I don’t hear it. As far as I can tell, or care, it’s just his singing voice.

As for the other things you say (I can’t even call them points you make), they seem nit-picky and intentionally abrasive. If you have the issues you mentioned, you likely had issues with the whole song/video. That’s ok, you don’t have to like it, but just come out and say that. Obviously, the guys ran because it was in the script, part of the director’s vision for the video. As for the kid laying in the alley, I’m actually quite sure it was because he was mugged, and not because he was taking a nap.