Quote:
Originally Posted by Landonfan
So the dictionary should control how I view the world? I disagree with the dictionary definition, and see no reason to do otherwise aside from a bunch of people telling me to. I've seen no solid evidence, I've only seen the opinion that jumping = X, and I'm not buying that.
::: triple sigh :::
No, and in fact, a dictionary doesn't arbitrarily assign definition; it merely indicates how it is used with as much precision as possible. Usage inevitably defines the word, not the other way around. So if you want to maintain that your scientific acuity is such that you wish to question the definition of such a word, be my guest. Most of the world, including those who are considered experts in their field, are perfectly comfortable using the word in said context. Once it reaches this stage, it becomes more than just an "opinion".
Such arbitrary labeling is not unusual. But it is generally more of a hindrance to making a point than an enhancement of it. You can call your dick a flashlight, if you wish, and no one can say you are right or wrong. You are simply assigning it a title. However, until it attains a level of usage, it will not be considered as such by any but yourself. The word "flashlight", to most, will have a set and solitary meaning that has no phallic connotations. Unless they are subliminal, and Freud was right after all.
Take, for instance, this example: "You cannot hum an entire song while holding your nose." Technically speaking, you
can. You can hold the tip of your nose, or the top, or in a way that doesn't impede the passage of air. Or you can find a song that is a few seconds long. However, "holding your nose" is generally considered to mean holding it in such a way that air cannot escape or get in, as in when one gets a whiff of the fart. To do this, and hum a song of reasonable length is, indeed, impossible to do. At some point, the air being shot through the voice box to produce a sound will have to be expelled. With one's nose held as per popular usage, and with one's mouth kept shut, expulsion cannot be achieved. The reasonable gist of the sentence is indeed true, in spite of technicalities that may indicate otherwise. Unless you stand to make a bundle on a bar bet that is tethered on such a technicality, pointing such out is less enlightenment or term-defining than douchebaggery of the most pathetic stripe.
Like I said, the logic of a semantic dodge is often unassailable. But it is rarely a salient point, either. You were the one who wished to define the terms, then balked when it was done and it led to a conclusion you didn't care for. If you don't wish to be questioned, then stop throwing out incorrect little posts that merely argue a point that you know less about than you think, as you did in your initial response to pfsr_cain. Interesting that every post you have made to this thread has been one of commentary, not contribution. You've given not one piece of pointless knowledge, in spite of your proclamations to have a head full of them, so you popped off in an effort to show you had a valid contribution with a smarmy "exposing" of someone else's well intentioned post. I think you may have spent a little too much time on some of the Yay-hoo forums and picked up some bad habits.
Sometimes I find you amusing, entertaining, and even enlightening, Landon, in spite of your borderline creepy obsession with underage gymnasts. But this is not one of those times.
Now, to get back on track:
Creedence Clearwater Revival never had a number one song on Billboard's Hot 100.
Andrew Jackson had a bullet lodged next to his heart, from a duel when he was younger.
Martin Luther wrote that the devil had visited him personally and he farted at him.
They were rare, but there
were black slaveholders in the pre-civil war United States.
Houdini completed the first manned flight on the continent of Australia.