George M. Middius wrote:


trotsky said:


Why do you simply reject my own experiences out of hand? I stated a
fact: "oversight" is used commonly to have the meaning from the
dictionary. That is a fact. If you don't recognize it, isn't it
simply because your experience doesn't coincide with mine? Isn't
that at least possible?



Sure, it's possible. I'll even say it's possible that you read two or
three times as much as me.


You should shut up now.


You first!





But therein lies the rub. The world doesn't
have as much to do with the written word as it did in years or
decades past.


Which other RAO regular changes the subject spontaneously in order
to avoid admitting he was wrong? Hint: This individual also said
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said".


No. If anything, I'm repeating what I said in my last post. You can
claim that I'm coming from the dept. of redundancy dept., but I can't
see how you say I'm changing the subject. The subject is word usage in
today's society. Agree or disagree?




Here's my recap: You made a stupid claim, a single person showed you
were all wet, and now you're trying to pretend you meant something
different from what you said.


Oh, it's like that. Sorry, George, but you're pulling a J. Oberlander
he what are the credentials that make you the expert? If Glenn
Zelniker explains the pitfalls of audio manufacturer, he's got
credentials. Oberlander does not. You may have good grasp of the
language, but I really don't see what your credentials are. In a lot of
ways, you are an anonymouse. Is "Middius" your real name?



Please don't call on me to support your opinions about language or
usage in the future, OK?


I didn't call on you for support, I asked your opinion. You gave it. I
don't agree with it, but that's hardly new on this newsgroup, is it.