How to Fake French Conversation

I just discovered this charming and amusing entry while taking a study break. It was posted 10 years ago. Enjoy!
-------

how to fake french

      retweet

The wife of a Frenchman let me in on a secret method of holding up your side in a conversation in French even when you can hardly speak the language. You simply need three phrases:

- C’est vrai!

This mean’s “It’s true”, and can be said in many different intonations for varied effect.

- Ce n’est pas pareil.

Now this would often be accompagnied by a shake of the head and a concerned look, and it means that “It’s not the same”, or less directly, “but that’s different”. Your final phrase is

- Je ne suis pas d’accord.

This one means “I don’t agree”, and it’s the most daring aspect of the cunning ploy. It seems risky, doesn’t it? Hearing this phrase, I immediately asked the Frenchman’s wife what on earth you do if your conversation partner calls you on this. How on earth are you going to explain why you disagree?

Well, that’s where the utter genius of this three-phrase plan comes into play. You simply go back to your second phrase, shake your head and say

- Ce n’est pas pareil.

The Frenchman’s wife swears that this simple technique has got her through years of communicating with her inlaws. And if that’s true, I reckon it’ll hold up for my July in France.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that I’ll actually be able to follow a French conversation without faking it.

23. June 2003 by Jill Original Post

Ready to go to France now? :-) Equivalent words in English could be "Really?" "Oh, I see." "Is that right?" Any other ideas?

New Jambu Paprika sandals arrived today!!

The Jambu Paprika wedge in Gunmetal just arrived today. So far here's the Pros/Cons I've seen:

Pros:
- Thin gauge straps look nice and delicate but feel sturdy; love the weave design
- Comfortable
- Pretty stylish, especially the rear view of the stacked heel
- Leather upper
- Easy Velcro strap w/o being obvious
- Gripping, rubber bottom
- Mostly stable heel (I'd not recommend running in them)
- Good all-over fit*
- Toes fit inside the edge of the shoe
- Shiny part on the heel looks cool
- Feminine

Cons:
- Ankle strap can feel weird if for ex. you sit on the floor with your feet in front of you and point your toes to the ceiling. Then you can feel it tighten a bit.
- Make some noise while walking from the leather straps
- Clunky (maybe this is a good thing, i.e. durable, but they do clump around some)
- Casual only. Maaaaybe summer semi-formal, but really just fun, pretty, casual outfits would fit this shoe best.
- Hint of dowdiness/oddness bc they still have that distinct "I'm comfortable!!" look; but that's ok for casual outfits, so it's almost not worth mentioning.

*Some reviewers said their feet were narrow and didn't fit well. I can see how they might say that. This shoe is great for wide-ish feet, like mine. Also, I normally wear 8, with some size 7.5's being OK. Based on the reviews, I bought an 7.5. At first I thought they'd still be too long, but my foot settled and they fit just right.

Final Thoughts:
I got free shipping and placed the order through Amazon Thursday, Feb. 7th. They came Feb. 11th.
From my 20 yr. old perspective, Jambu did a good job on a sandal that is comfortable first, stylish a close second. If you look at the pros list quite a few are about how attractive they are. These are head and shoulders above some brutally ugly shoes in the same market, and I hope they prove as versatile as they appear.

Can Laissez-Faire Business and Privacy Coexist?

Prompt: Read two articles for each side of the Room for Debate topic, which is posted below, and tell us which side makes a stronger argument. Also, I want you to take a position on the topic...are you okay giving up your privacy rights, considering the trade-off?
After you do that, respond to your fellow readers (in a constructive way). 
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/11/privacy-and-the-apps-you-download
  
  Ultimately, it is up to the users to participate in the information market by choosing what they want to share and by educating themselves on how that information will be used. For example, the privacy terms that everyone bypasses when they sign up for a service actually tell a lot about what that company is going to do for you and your privacy, or conversely, how they will exploit you. It is up to the individual user to choose the service or decline. This is where parental oversight should be emphasized for minors who may not be aware of how their information will be used.
  
  However, companies should not participate in unethical dissemination of user's information just because people have signed up for their service. A great example is the 2008-2009 investment scandal involving Bernard Madoff. He successfully pulled the wool over investors eyes and the SEC, took people's money, and he is now known for the biggest Ponzi scheme of the decade. There are three things to take from this. First, the "users" had the chance to question their rosy ROIs, but for the most part, they were completely in the dark. Second, the SEC should have noticed something amiss, it is their job. Most importantly, Bernie Madoff participated in criminal activities before people knew about it, and he was charged and found guilty for criminal acts when it came to light. In short, businesses have the right to engage in commerce with user's freely given information, but they should not permit themselves to overstep just because no one knows what they are doing.
  
  The government is the watchdog, the referee. They are responsible to keep Ponzi schemes from happening, or at least be there with the gavel saying "Guilty!" when the time comes. Maybe the most proactive they could be regarding information privacy is to make a new mandate. Businesses should be required by law to make interactive privacy terms complete with pictures, music, and real-life examples, narrated by a talking animal or a celebrity.

  I think the people who are propose more privacy controls have the stronger argument. The reality now is that more information than ever is distributed and the trend is continuing. Arguing for more privacy as opposed to more disclosure will never go out of style.
  
  
Thanks.