(05-20-2021 07:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 07:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2021 06:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If it's in the dictionary it's common use!

Funny, you two have bitched previously about anything else 'in the real world' being merely an example, and not proof. And obstensibly insist on 'sources'.

Now when there is a source, and it goes against you, you two now ***** about that and point to what is used 'in the real world'. In fing amazing. What a duo of utter hypocrites. Good job there frick and frack.

Btw frack, that has been a usage in the dictionary for probably longer than you have been alive -- and longer than I have. i guess *now* it should be ignored.

Again, what an amazing display of sheer fing hypocrisy --- <slow clap>. I suggest you two try to be consistent for once.

But that's typical progressivism for you, when the rules espoused go against you, just move the goalposts! Brilliant display there you two, I couldnt have done better than that.

Wait, if we're now going against our previous position and your opposing it, but you also opposed our previous position, doesn't that mean... no, no, no. No way that Tanq is potentially flip flopping too!

Just pointing out your rampant hypocrisy. Clear enough for you?

Right back at ya, partner!

Rampant hypocrisy by pointing out rampant hypocrisy. Got it. Makes sense to me. (twirl fingers around earlobe).

Your position is that you dont give a flying flip if it is in the dictionary in the 'soft sense'. On multiple occasions, mind you.

93 has stated that OO has 'expanded' the definition from 'common usage'. Then retreats and says he whole heartedly understands that an alternative is 'in the dictionary' --- yet he claims that OO expanded it by merely using it.

I pointed out that mild point of moving goalposts.

Then you chirp in with a non-sequitor.

You two hinge everything you have on 'common use' and an exclusive definition, to the exclusion of explicit alternatives, to the word 'racist'. That is, writing one definition out by 'common use'.

I point out how you in particular in time past have complained about items that have, as their basis, common use or common knowledge as the foundation. Now, when it suits you, you studiously promote 'common use' above even a primary source.

Unbelievably hypocritical. Context dependent yardsticks. Good job there.

If you had bothered to read, I dont make a comment one way or the other on which yardstick -- I am pointing out *your* varying 'rules of lad-world'.

One day no 'common use or common knowledge' (when it suits you), and another nothing but "common use or common knowledge" (when it suits you). On the latter you take the further step of even studiously ignoring a primary source or two on it.

Now apparently I am hypocritical for.... something. Beats the fk out of me since all I did was point out your widely varying yardsticks.

I mean, all I did was subscribe to *your* mantra of 'primary sources', which, actually has value. But you have the innate ability to make one feel like they are talking with a vat of talking point jello -- so this turn really doesnt surprise me to any great extent.