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 As such they are always out of date besides the fact that there are probably no dictionaries in any language that provide definitions for 100% of the words in any point in time or in any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.

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.