Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC
From: Paul Lawler (stargazer_at_kilolaniDOT.net)
Date: 06/19/04
- Next message: Rod Mollise: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Previous message: Jim Beam: "Re: refractor design"
- In reply to: Mike Ruskai: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Next in thread: Chris.B: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Reply: Chris.B: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:14:09 GMT
"Mike Ruskai" <spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote in message
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxarg.hzkm4u0.pminews@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> My other pet language peeve is moot. Moot means arguable. People say an
> issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
> arguing about anymore.
>
> I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
> silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
> the meaning, as with moot).
I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.
- Next message: Rod Mollise: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Previous message: Jim Beam: "Re: refractor design"
- In reply to: Mike Ruskai: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Next in thread: Chris.B: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Reply: Chris.B: "Re: RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|