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. 

RGoss99 said:

Perhaps you should provide a reference to a dictionary that supports your definition.

Of what?

Can you remember the two words I could not find a definition for?

I'm not going to tell you.  It's up to you to remember what they are.

And post this dictionary definition you provided, please.

And source the dictionary.

That said - I know that language evolves and adding a prefix to the beginning of a word can make a new one.

That does not mean it always should.

One word that always grates when I hear it is "proactive".

It is a redundant prefix.  Pro means for, or in favour of and forward.

This means the literal definition of the word is "In favour of being active", or "Forwardly active".

You are either active, or you are not.  Being in favour of being active is pointless, and the time when you decide to be active is irrelevant.

My pet peeve suffix is when people add "ly" to Unique to make "uniquely".

I'm infuriated that word did not have a red squiggly line, because it should.

Unique is singular.  Nothing is "very unique" in the way that a pot plant is not "very a table".

It is or it is not. 

I hope I don't get a G=G+1 for going off topic.

The Middle East ain't as rivetting for some as it is for others.

You won't find me touring religious sites and sights looking like a lost sheep to be fleeced.