Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
7268 messages in 177 discussions
Latest 2/16/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
9342 messages in 66 discussions
Latest Nov-22 by smmheart1
5031 messages in 115 discussions
Latest Nov-21 by A Kid by any other name... (Kidmagnet)
This is your argument, not mine.
Posting to me does not mean you are not REPLYING to Berry.
Since the "eu" in "euphonism" means "good" in this case the Word is "cacaphonism" since he is badmouthing.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
Posting to me does not mean you are not REPLYING to Berry.
Especially when he's posting lies.
There is no question that Israel is colluding with the extremists and they are driving the Christians into individual and joint penury.
|Christian tourists take part in a ceremony at the Yardenit baptismal site near Tiberias. Gil Eliahu|
The insurance company paid nothing atall for the "Church of the Loaves and Fishes" in Galillee.
The Israeli government paid half of what they owed.
Nasty anti-Christian regime they have there!
Even their own media reminds us of the heavy-handed discrimination against Christians.
A Holy Mystery: Why Aren't Christian Pilgrims Visiting the Homeland of Jesus?
Experts put the potential for Christian faith tourists at 10 million a year, compared with 700,000 at present. What's Israel doing wrong?
May 16, 2017 - How is it that a land in which one can visit both the reputed birthplace and the empty tomb of Jesus as well as sites where he walked, addressed his followers and carried out miracles, according to the New Testament, attracts only a few hundred thousand pilgrims a year? A quick glance at other Christian destinations around the world highlights the conundrum.
Lourdes in France sees as many as six million pilgrims and other tourists a year, who flock to the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes. The Fatima shrine in the tiny Portuguese town by that name attracts a similar number. An estimated 1.5 million pilgrims and tourists visit the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain.
By way of comparison, last year only 350,000 Christian faith tourists entered the Jordan River at the Yardenit baptismal site. A similar site near Jericho attracted just 343,000 pilgrims, according to the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.
Israeli travel agents specializing in Christian tourism estimate that 500,000 to 700,000 Christian pilgrims visit Israel annually. Everyone I spoke to put the potential at 10 million a year.
(Actually, the Zionist media is obfuscating those figures - most of the pilgrims who do visit the holy sites still accesible in Palestine are local Palestinians. Very few outsiders.)
Actually the word doesn't exist. And neither does euphonism.
from the very same article Numbnuts cut and pasted for the 100th time - the reality is we cant COPE with the enormous tourist industry we currently have
" Solana says the country’s major Christian sites are already overcrowded. Visitors to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, often wait in line for two or three hours. Solana says that better management is the answer. He suggests expanding hours at holy sites and introducing an effective online reservation system. Solana has praise for the Tourism Ministry but proposes gathering everyone involved in faith tourism to Israel into a single forum in order to plan for the next 50 years. "
he reality is we cant COPE with the enormous tourist industry we currently have
Israel sends soldiers into the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (almost the only site that's easily accessible to visitors) and roughs up the French President.
Roughs up the Christians who look after it and the clerics.
First of all you need to have taken English IA seriously.
A word is a single distinct meaningful element of speech <<OR>> writing ….
Any intelligent person can recognize a “word” as such even if it is misspelled as in my previous post.
Secondly whether you can find a word in your dictionary or not ignores thefact that a word exists whther it is in a dictionary or not if it es a “single distinct meaningful element of speech”.
Now take “euphenism” for example of a word meaning “a <<MILD>>mild or indirect word or expression <<SUBSITITUTED>> for one considered to be <<TOO HARSH>> or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
So obviously when you used the word “euphenism” you obviously did not know or understand its meaning because you <<substituted>> it as <<NEGATIVE>> as opposed to <<MILD>> use. In other words instead of “euphemism” you should have used an antonym. While there are many antonyms for euphemism that I could have used, I followed regular linguistic practice by changing the prefix “eu” meaning “good” to it antonym “caca” meaning bad. A common pattern and usage among educated people. Here are some examples of this same substitution of changing good (eu) to bad (caca) making my “word” a word because in this context it fits the definition, even though you seem to be unable to figure it out.
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.
Contrary to what your primary school teacher taught you, dictionaries are not law books, they are simply history books informing the user how words have been used and their meanings in the past. As such they are always out of date besides the fact that there are probably no dictionaries in any language that provide definitions for 100% of the words in any point in time or in any location.
In many non Latin or non Greek languages, such as Russian, English, Basque, Gaelic, Romanian, German, if one counts the spoken words, their origin is the same as the name of the language. However if one counts the words in their dictionarie one will find that the majority of the words are of Greek and Latin origin, even if only the suffixes, or prefixes.
One problem with net democracy is that everyone is equal and feels their statements have equal weight, even if they are in the majority. This is a false assumption, because it allows any idiot the right to criticize, and assume that their crit is valid, even if they have no way of backing it up.
Your ultimate error, besides not responding to my point that you misused the word “euphemism”, is that even if I coined the <<WORD>> “cacaphenim” it would still be a word, once I posted it because if a pun it would still fit the definition of a word.
Correct, but in Jenifer´s case it does not matter, because she does not have the tools to have a productive discussion of issues. So she ignores the point made, in this case where she is wrong in her use of "euphenism", she simply changes the subject, using Aristotle´s ad hom logical error. If I made a statement that was understood by just only one other person, all of its words would be words.
In this case, i accept that I made a misspelling, but from context, she had no excuse to ignore the message.
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.