RGoss99 said:

In music “euphony” =  good sound  “cacophony” = bad sound. (this is probably the best known example of this dichotomy) Eupraxy = well / cacapraxy = sick, euphrasia=happiness / cacaphrasia = sadness, eucharist = mass /cacacharist = black mass, eulogia = blessing / cacalogia = curse, eudipleural = symmetrical / cacadipleural = a symmetrical, eugenic = produce / cacagenic = abort.

If I didn't know you so well, I'd be worried you were making that up.

RGoss99 said:

Correct, but in Jenifer´s case it does not matter, because she does not have the tools to have a productive discussion of issues.

Wizops are notoriously subject to blackmail by the Zionists.

So its no wonder we're left in the hands of the second and third-rate - and Zarknorph is actually among the first rate (A- perhaps).

Please recognise one of the few who has stood up to these murderous bullies (even if shamefully little).

Rathe then be worried, instead of making you doubts public it might be wise to look up three things: the prefix "eu-" in Greek, prefix "caca" in Greek, and the English word "cacaphony", then compare it with the English word "euphony".

Whether she has stood up is not relevant, as this is a separate issue.

RGoss99 said:

Whether she has stood up is not relevant, as this is a separate issue.

Its central to the management of this Farom.

Does she allow these boastful terrorist thugs to shut it down or not?

G=G+1

I did not ignore your message, often the first messages opened are marked as read and lost to me.

Basically I googled the two words you typed.

Neither existed.

Euphemism exists, as does cacophony and cacophonous.

"euphonism" and "cacaphonism" are not listed, and the squiggly red line beneath them on the message board should always be the first clue.

One of the reasons you give your G=G responses is because you do not like it when a post degenerates into insult.

Please adhere to your own standards in future.

You are ignoring two facts I presented:

1. the definition of what a Word is, and

2- your "never existed" simply in your arrogance means in your limited research skills, you could not find some words I used, e.g. they don´t exist. Fortunately the universo is not limited by your knowledge, experience, and lack of ability.

When one pontificates one´s opinions and can not back them up, one loses the right to be taken seriously.

The fact that we (the 3 of us) agree regarding Israel is meaningless in her case, because her only value is a vote, however mindless her justification. When you provide your case (with which I mostly agree) based on logic and facts, you undermine your point when using her support as having some value, other then a vote that Will never happen. Her opinión without logic, reason, or facts would only influence others who don´t bother with logic, reason, or facts - e.g. worthless as a solution, just taking up cyberspace.

Fine.

Please guide my ignorant little brain to the dictionary definition of the two words.

Provide links.

And stop being an arrogant prick about it.

Every single one of your conversations here are degenerating into nothing but G=G+1's.

G=G+1 first we have to agree on what is, or is not a word. Obviously you don´t agree with my definition copied from a dictionary. Perhaps you should provide a reference to a dictionary that supports your definition.