 | | Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
| | | | (...) of (...) money (...) It (...) like (...) Just one quick note on this... One reason newer dictionaries may change meanings is because the langauge has evolved. Now one can argue about the purity of language all they want, but if you want to be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Age limitations —Erik Olson
| | | | | (...) I'm familiar with this argument, it's a false alternative. Yes, language changes. No, I won't take a centuries old dictionary, but I think I can learn more from an older dictionary than the muddle that is Random House today. The first purpose (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) Erik said the magic word. Give that man a hundred dollars (on a tile). (...) I'm not sure it has. And I'm with Erik on this. Those with vested interests, and therefore those with standing to decide, are the NELUG members, and only the NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
