View Single Post
Old 01-30-2007, 05:52 AM   #27
Disch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,387
Default Re: I'm still here, in the background.

> If we're going to argue over semantics, so be it.

<u>http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/sho...&sb=5&o=0&vc=1You're the one</a></u> who started arguing semantics right out of the gate. Or did you forget that already? [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Kind of strange for someone to actually link to dictionary sites then turn around and tell everyone else not to argue semantics.


You also argued poorly, since <u><a href"http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/failure">the very site you linked to regarding 'failure'</a></u> has a definition which confirms that Swampgas did, indeed, use the word properly and didn't misunderstand anything in your initial post.

You said:
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

the reason ZD failed

<hr></blockquote>

By definition #4 of 'failure'... if you say something has failed, then you can also say it's a failure:

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>


Main Entry: fail·ure
Pronunciation: 'fAl-y&r
Function: noun
-snip-
4 : one that has failed


<hr></blockquote>


Therefore:
To say "one has failed" is synonymous with "one is a failure"


I already brought this up on a less wordy post <u>http://www.zophar.net/wwwthreads/sho...apsed&sb=5&o=0here</a></u>, but it seems to have gone unnoticed (or you just chose to ignore it?)
<P ID="signature"></P>
Disch is offline   Reply With Quote