When I was a kid, my dad would make us “banana surprise” for dessert sometimes. It’s quartered bananas with Miracle Whip and chopped walnuts on top. I didn’t like nuts, so I would take it without. Has to be Miracle Whip though. He also loves it on lime jello with shredded carrots.

Oh I don’t doubt it!

I wouldn’t call turkeys smallish, they’re certainly larger than owls. At least the ones running the Twin Cities streets like gangs, they’re the size of freaking ponies.

That was those courts, we’ve got these courts.

Right, DOJ isn’t Congress tho

But I don’t wanna fuck Off Randy, especially with a name like that…

Totally forgot he and Robert Mueller are different people, I was sure Comey was dead, oops

There is a modern Library of Alexandria, just fyi, it’s pretty fucking dope.

Jim moved it all into a Broth IRA

A baby is the product of birth, the product of death is a corpse, so it’d be a corpse bloom.

My guess is camera

Hyphens clarify compounds

Exactly, they clarify multi-word compound adjectives from multi-word non-compound adjectives. Only multi-word compound adjectives in everyday, common use can get away with forgoing the hyphen without creating the kind of confusion exemplified perfectly by the comments above. “Child-eating” is obviously not in everyday, common usage, and thus should be hyphenated.

Reading ‘child’ as its own noun would require ‘a child’ or a different construction, which isn’t what’s written.

I’m not reading it as its own noun, I’m reading it as a noun adjunct, describing pedophiles. If the pedophiles are children, they’re child pedophiles. If those child pedophiles are eating… Sure it should have a comma, but lord knows no one on the Internet knows how to use them properly.

None of this really matters because it was all based on a shitreply to a doom post, who gives a shit?

Still don’t know what gamer and yeah has to do with anything, but you do you bud 😘

“Child eating” is not a compound modifier, that’s what the hyphen does. Without a hyphen, the modifiers “child” and “eating” both independently describe “pedophiles”, the hyphen makes “child-eating” into the compound adjective the author was obviously intending to convey. Wikipedia uses the example “heavy-metal detector”. Without the hyphen, you have a metal detector that’s heavy. If you need a device to detect heavy-metals, your SOL.

Absolutely no clue what “gamer and yeah” means 🤷‍♂️

No I’m not, I’m interpreting it as the object of the preposition by. The lack of hyphenation means that child is either a noun which is eating pedophiles or an adjective describing pedophiles who are eating. Presumably neither is what the author intended.

It’s not my phrasing, take it up with the OP.

I’d give 100% of my paycheck to a child that eats pedophiles

There are different kinds of dangerous drivers. The kinds you don’t want behind you are usually either easy to pass and leave far behind or easy to let pass you. My whole premise is based around the first kind, that is driving negligently slower than the flow of traffic. Anyone staying behind them (read: you) would then also be driving negligently. Since they’re, as established, going way too slow, they are very easy to pass and get plenty of distance between without adding an extra hour onto my and every other driver’s commute.

As explained elsewhere in these replies, the biggest fear from being in front of this kind of driver is being directly in front of them and getting rear-ended at a stop when they’re not paying attention, but if I can overtake them, that means I can just stay in a different lane from them and there’s no real concern.

Like I said I’m a different reply, It’s not in anyone’s best interest for me to go 15 to 30 mph below the flow of traffic just because I ended up behind someone who doesn’t know they’re on Earth much less operating an automobile. If there’s a legal way to pass them, I’m going to. Once they’re behind you, you only have to worry about getting rear-ended at a stop, which is only an issue in slower city traffic where it is easier to keep an eye on someone behind you. In which case, just stay in the lane you used to get around them.

If they’re driving erratically, however that’s another story and I definitely agree that I want to stay as far back from them as I can. But they’re usually speeding and my whole point is centered on the premise of being stuck behind a slow inattentive or otherwise neglegent driver. They don’t even need to be a bad driver, maybe they’re new to the area, looking for parking, having a medical issue, etc. Just pointing out that not all overtaking is about getting there first.

Yes I was a mail carrier, I’ve driven professionally. Which means I also know how to most safely and efficiently get to my destination, and neither involve being at the whims of a dangerously negligent idiot going 30 mph slower than the flow of traffic. 🤷‍♂️

The options under discussion are pass and not be involved in a wreck or stay behind and wait to be involved in a wreck and somehow the second option is more appealing to you? Yeah no thanks, I’ll pass and avoid it entirely instead of waiting for it to happen, hoping it happens in a predictable & easy-to-avoid way, hoping that every other driver on the road with us is also waiting for it to happen, hoping we all have perfect reaction time, hoping all our cars respond properly, and hoping that road conditions are “ideal.” That’s a lot of luck. If you can predict how and when a bad driver is gonna crash, you go ahead and caravan with them, I know I personally can’t see the future so I’m going to get as far away as I possibly can.