I can't believe rockmom bailed Clyde out like that. :lol:

 

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions?

That's where you lose me. I'm 96% of the belief that any word you can say is a word, because every word had to originate somewhere. It's just not made it to Webster yet. I'm sure Shakespeare caught flack for using the word "bedroom" once upon a time. :idunno:

 

I'll leave the 4% open for words that are complete contradictions to what the person is actually trying to say (irregardless, for example).

 

I'm not really sure how much I believe anything I just wrote, just so we all know.

 

 

:lol: You had me going and seeing red until the last two lines. :lol:

 

But, to debate the issue:

 

In the case deservant: There is already a word to denote the probable meaning of that word. Why does one feel compelled to completely ignore that, and make up a new word? There is simply no basis for making up a new word simply because one chooses to not use the word that so conveniently already exists. :lol:

 

I also want to protest the "if you use it enough they'll add it to Webster's" theory. That works for completely new words to denote new ideas/technology/theories, etc. It doesn't work for new words to replace old ones. :lol:

I can't believe rockmom bailed Clyde out like that. :lol:

 

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions?

 

 

It's called grammatical aid. It's an entitlement program.

This takes me back to a post I made last year. It was about education, and having a problem with work being displayed in schools. Teachers would hang students work up in the hall for everyone to see and most of it would have major errors in it. I understand not undermining a childs self esteem, but how hard would it be to make sure the work is correct before putting it on display. I'm sure there are a few mistakes in this post, so please don't take my work down.

I guess I could say that I am definitely guilty of the (...) as well.

 

I do it all the time.

By the way, its "ludicrous" and not "ludacris." One is an actual word. The other is a rapper.

But, to debate the issue:

 

In the case deservant: There is already a word to denote the probable meaning of that word. Why does one feel compelled to completely ignore that, and make up a new word? There is simply no basis for making up a new word simply because one chooses to not use the word that so conveniently already exists. :lol:

 

I also want to protest the "if you use it enough they'll add it to Webster's" theory. That works for completely new words to denote new ideas/technology/theories, etc. It doesn't work for new words to replace old ones. :lol:

Once an apologetic, always an apologetic.

 

 

 

It's called grammatical aid. It's an entitlement program.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

 

I nearly spit out my drink!!!

I guess I could say that I am definitely guilty of the (...) as well.

 

I am (...) #1 fan...

What about my personal favorite, " I seen him play a couple of times."

 

Think of a bad horror movie and realize you, "saw," him play. Or maybe, you, "have seen," him play.

I'm just glad we don't require members to post in cursive. From what I can tell, it's a lost art. My wife is a middle school teacher, and I estimate that at least 75% of her students' papers are printed.

 

She has had more than one parent request that she not write in cursive on the board because the child couldn't read it.

What about my personal favorite, " I seen him play a couple of times."

 

Think of a bad horror movie and realize you, "saw," him play. Or maybe, you, "have seen," him play.

 

 

How about, "I seed him play", or "I heerd that he could play."

I'm just glad we don't require members to post in cursive. From what I can tell, it's a lost art. My wife is a middle school teacher, and I estimate that at least 75% of her students' papers are printed.

 

She has had more than one parent request that she not write in cursive on the board because the child couldn't read it.

 

I am amazed at how many students I get cannot read a non-digital clock.

I am amazed at how many students I get cannot read a non-digital clock.

 

That doesn't surprise me at all. The more technology we develop, the more dependent we become and the more we get away from the basics.

 

How many could get through basic math without a calculator?

And makes Jim Schue want to pull his hair out ...

 

So that's why you cut your hair?!! :lol::lol::lol: