=EKM=Mycenae

This is because they almost always incorporate common usage in the definition. It is my contention that common usage is not always correct and that the only acceptable way to define a word is by it's root and suffix. For instance, the dictionary defines "decimate" as " to destroy or kill a large part of (a group). " With only the last definition adhering to the latin root, deci (meaning tenth) and correctly defining it as "to select by lot and kill one in every ten of." Now, we could have had a perfectly good word for "to reduce by one tenth" but instead we have yet another synonym for "to greatly reduce," ?obliterate,? ?destroy,? ?annihilate? or "lay waste to." It wouldn't be a widely used word, but it would be specific and direct when it was.Some people think common usage is how language evolves. I have concluded that common usage is how language deteriorates over time. It is the mixture of languages and the creation of new words that makes language "evolve" and become more expressive. This is why english is so very successful and expressive: it incorporates words from other languages and creates new ones for specific meanings.Common usage, on the other hand, does the opposite. Words that are already in the language acquire additional meanings and synonyms as their incorrect use becomes more widespread and accepted. The logical extent of this trend is that eventually all the words in a language will be synonyms of each other and all speech will become indirect, unspecific and ultimately incoherent, defeating the purpose of language.I am speaking, of course, only in the context of semantic debate. I am not suggesting we all abandon synonyms in our conversations (then I couldn?t call someone a douchebag), but if the definition of a word is disputed in a resolution or contention, common usage is inherently inadmissible and only the root of the word my decide its meaning for the purpose of the debate.This also means that atheist and anti-theist are not the same thing.

I've never really understood cybersex myself or why people do it, for that matter. I guess it's just something of a mind game people like to play since they can't be bothered to leave their computers/workplace/home. Then again, some people are just plain hilarious when they do it, because they make fun of it in a satirical way.I'm sure a lot of people have seen this, but here is a chatlog of a cybersex session:Bloodninja: I lick your earlobe, and undo your watch.Sarah19fca: mmmm, okay.Bloodninja: I take yo pants off, grunting like a troll.Sarah19fca: Yeah I like it rough.Bloodninja: I smack you thick booty.Sarah19fca: Oh yeah, that feels good.Bloodninja: Smack, Smack, yeeeaahhh.Bloodninja: I make some toast and eat it off your *bottom*. Land O' Lakes butter all in your crack. Mmmm.Sarah19fca: you like that?Bloodninja: I peel some bananas.Sarah19fca: Oh, what are you gonna do with those?Bloodninja: get me peanuts. Peanuts from the ballpark.Sarah19fca: Peanuts?Bloodninja: Ken Griffey Jr. Yeaaaaahhh.Sarah19fca: What are you talking about?Bloodninja: I'm spent, I jump down into the alley and smoke a fatty. I throw rocks at the cats.Sarah19fca: This is stupid.Bloodninja: Stone Cold Steve Austin gives me some beer.Bloodninja: Wanna Wrestle Stone Cold?Bloodninja: Yeeaahhhh.Sarah19fca: /ignoreBloodninja: Its cool stone cold she was a jerk anyway.Bloodninja: We get on harleys and ride into the sunset.

Funny how when there is one thing completely out of balance, there's another that is completely opposite to balance things out. For example, the movie "Unbreakable" by M. Night Shyamalan featured one man who was easily injured physically, and another who was more durable than an M-1 Abrams. Likewise, with the radical Micheal Moore, there is the reactionary Ann Coulter. Both are extremely biased, and will defend their opinions irrationally, sometimes to the point of vile hypocrisy.Case in point: Coulter was quoted once quoted as saying "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole." Funny, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hyperbole as "extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")." Listos: A writing tool which, as you say, is NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, EVEN IN THE EYES OF THE AUTHOR. However, Coulter has also stated, "I beleive everything I say." Let's hear it for hypocrisy!!Coulter has also gone on record as saying the following"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining, and stripping. Sweaters are for the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view." - from the column "Oil Good, Democrats Bad"Oh really? The thought of keeping our resources stretched out means we don't like to rule our planet? Oh, never mind the fact that this blasphemous "conservation" is something that just about everyone needs to do with their money and food (or lack thereof). And by the way, God did say, "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply," but said nothing about "raping the planet." Since the Bible said God told man that "What you hold true on Earth, I'll hold true in Heaven," that would mean that raping the planet is illegal! So go ahead and drill, mine, and strip your thousand-acre property, Ann! let me know how things are going when you are forced to colonize another planet when you run out of resources! Have fun driving your cars that can't go when you deplete the world's oil (Oh, God... err BUSH forbid that you be caught using a secondary fuel source, because Oil Good [sic])!"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."If irony were oil, she'd plead George "There ought to be limits to freedom" Bush and *BLEEP* "Go *BLEEP* Yourself" Cheney to bomb the preceding quote. The people "cheering and dancing" were terrorists and their supporters. I mean, is she so oblivious to other things that you don't realize that just about the entirety of the Muslim community condemned the beheading of Nick Berg? And of course, here she is *BLEEP*ing about these "homicidal maniacs" when she says, "We should invade their countries, *KILL THEIR LEADERS*, and convert them to Christianity." Let's hear it for hypocrisy!! And FYI, the carpet-bombing of Germany wasn't war, it's a war CRIME, and only people like Milosevich think things like that are justifiable. Try reading up on something called the GENEVA CONVENTIONS sometime, it's actually quite informative."Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."First off, I will comment on the fact that she were enough of a narcissitic *BLEEP*nugget to put that statement on a TALKING ANN COULTER DOLL. Hey kids! Head down to your nearest toystore and pick up the new "*BLEEP* Barbie!!" She says such things as, "At least when right-wingers rant, they have a point" and other such nonsensical *BLEEP*!Now, onto more important matters. I myself am a liberal. I hate no race or religion. I am of the Quaker religion, as are my mother and father. My sister is a Wiccan, and one of my best friends is a Hindu. Not a single person in my family or circle of friends is a racist, nor am I. Now, all that aside, I am willing to bet my life savings that she does not yet know that waving 3 flags on your car DOES NOT make you more patriotic than the person in front of you waving 2, with the "God Bless America" bumper sticker. All it means is that the people who do it are easily swayed and rounded up into a bandwagon mentality that has just about every conservative cheering for Bush because he can use the word "terror" 30 times in 30 minutes during a speech. All it means is that people who do that just go with the opinions that are already made for them. Me? I like to form an opinion, but unfortunately, according to Attourney General McCarthy... err Ashcroft, for forming my own opinion that disagrees with Bush, I am a terrorist and should therefore be arrested and detained according to the Patriot Act. Here's some food for thought on the rest of your quote, Ann. Last time I checked, I saw no liberals burning flags or beheading people during the Republican National Convention, shouting praise for Allah. And to me, it seems that Conservatives love all religions, as long as the only religion around is Christianity, as stated in the previous quote. And the reason they don't have indoor plumbing is because they DO hate America so much, they subscribe to Fundamentalist policies! Let's see a liberal do that!"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."And, on saying the quote above this one..."Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters."I'd say that with Coulter saying "I beleive what I say," this is yet another prime example of hypocrisy, Coulter-style!! Once again, she goes on her liberal-bashing exodus, but you go too far, and instead give a quick regret, lest she loses some publicity ("OH NO, ANYTHING BUT THAT! I'D SIMPLY DIE IF I COULDN'T MAKE OVER 5 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! HOW WOULD I OVERDOSE MY FACE ON EYE LINER?!"), then tries to save face with another anti-liberal quote. So, to recap: Coulter gives one of her "Coulterisms," looks bad, gives a bare-bones apology (to call it Half-Assed would be an insult to everything that is half-assed in the world), and then attacks the people who form their own opinions rather than allow themselves to be swayed by the distortions of the reactionaries. Yep. Real sensible, Ann! Truth is, we don't make our own opinions because we are terrorists, its because it's one of the perks that comes with the government we live in. Which is why this *BLEEP* is allowed to get away with just about everything that comes out of her mouth and computer.If she's going to be a columnist, then she needs to get a *BLEEP*ing clue! She's in no position to be attacking liberals, seeing as how an 18-year old liberal is ripping her arguments to bits.