On Jun 8, 12:03 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...@hpl.hp.com> wrote: No notion that it could ever be used neutrally. The word comes from a Middle French word meaning "person who shows excessive religious zeal, a religious hypocrite." It is nearly always used as a term that applies to other people, at least to those with unexamined lives. Just like 'foreigner'. Only the most
Of course he can. What *YOU* can't provide is evidence to support what you claimed he said. Yep... I said this, and I still fully agree with it. The moron repeatedly makes assertions that he's completely unable to cite support for... one of the most recent is his claim that a rifle must be 'processed' at the crime scene. Yep... not only did I say this, but I provided a citation
In article <53300d28-b97e-4a69-9e7f-f99edcadd254@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, robcap...@netscape.com says... On Jun 6, 1:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote: In article <2e9d9e53-0e12-42b3-a490-687f35767...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, robcap...@netscape.com says... (Snip old stuff) You're claiming that I'm denying my own words... where's the denial
DanS. <DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaughter@sbcglobal.net> writes: It has taken on too negative a meaning. I mean, by definition it just means someone who's made their mind up about a subject concerning what is tolerable and intolerable socially (and often politically). There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but the descriptive term makes it seem that way. The OED has the following
