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.

I already gave you a dictionary definition, that proves your statement "it not a word" is false because my use of what I call a "word" fits the definition. For you to have any status in this argument you have to find a definition that my "word" does not fit, which is why I asked, and probably why you can´t give a straight answer.

Put simply: if euphony, cacaphony, and euphenism, etc. are words by the same definition cacphenism is also a word by the standard definition of such.

The reason for the "G" respone is that you have not answered my point regarding your misuse of the word "euphenism".

"does not mean it should" is a symptom of your analretentativeness because it also does not mean that it shouldn´t. Interesting that you have just undermined your original point when you admitted it was a word. where in your previous post you said it was not such, implying that in your infinite wisdom you could not find it in a dictionary meaning it does not exist - another example that you seem to know little as to the functions, purposes, etc. of dictionaries and how they come to exist.

As to your unique / uniquely point, again you don´t understand they way adverbs such as "-ly" work. In all Germanic languages, the unit "ly" is simply a derivitive of "like" So in your example while we agree that "unique" means one of a kind, by definition "uniquely" means "like one of a kind", e.g. similar to. For example if one is uniquely beautiful, since beautiful is not measurable the context is compared to some set of people defined or implied, not that in global terms she is beautiful. 

Given you handicap regarding English, I am not surprised that you have such a problem communicating, because you seem to have a "uniquely" personal dictionary and/or grammar - so you have to go around making up rules about thingssuch as "not a word" and what you consider improper adverbial endings.

Here are some examples of your problem in other languages:

Unique (Eng) = únic (Cat)

Uniquely (Eng) = única (Cat) = only (Eng)* = unicament (cat)

Uniquely (Eng) = únicamente (Esp)

Uniquely (Eng) = einzigartig (Ger)

_______

* what is ironic about your arguement if unique as one of a kind can not have

uniquely, why does "only" which like "uni" meaning one not allow this contraction meaning "onely"? Answer in all of the above is that your understanding of "-ly" is either false or incomple. Judging by your previous language misunderstanding, my interpretation is that either your teachers were of the 2+2=4 absolutist type, and did not give you any information beyond what was necessary to pass some standardized test, or your need for absolutes, causes you to filter out less then absolute meanings from their teaching.

So for the above part, already answered ... (second part is new so you probably should have put it in a different post as off topic to the first part.

G=G+1

I suspect I would not see you like a "lost sheep" The problem is that most religious sites are so fake and/or commercialized, or packed with lost sheep, they are best observed off season, even then there is a problem.

Several weeks ago I was an Capadocia visiting a historic monastery dating from the time when Romans were still persecuting christians. The scene was beautiful, white with snow and a lot of volcanic cones, that had been hollowed out to make cells, kitchens, dining rooms, chapels. One of my students wanted her picture taken with the monastery to her back. Unfortunately there was a bus load of tourists, who showed no respect for the fact that I was obviously posing the student to get the shot she wanted. Instead of going to the right or left of me and the student, they kept standing, walking, `posing right in the middle of my shot - judging by their conversations they had no clue as to the significance of the site, they just wanted an "I was there" photo to impress the folks back home. I ended up taking 4 shots, of which only one was not messed up by some intrusion. Examples