Re: terms

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Tintin: "Re: Please Chant This Shamanistic Chant With Us (at PIU)!"
• Previous message: Psycho Dave: "Re: PROBING"
• Maybe in reply to: William ALBERT: "terms"
• Next in thread: Errol Back-Cunningham: "Re: terms"

ebc@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) wrote:

>In <52a4d6$ql6@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
>writes:
>>Errol,
>>
>>You're confusing the noun with the verb. You've been caught faking
>>it. If you don't have the balls to make a lighthearted apology, at
>>least have the sense to shut up.
>>
> My dear sir - you appear to (highly technical psychobabble):
> have gone completely bananas.
> My OXFORD English dictionary defines 'affect' as a verb - it
> defines 'affectation' as a noun - meaning 'pretence -esp in
> behaviour' - I'm afraid you seem to suffering from delusions of
> a linguistic nature...

Nope. The problem is either you haven't read far enough in your
dictionary, or you're using a grade school Oxford which defines 1200
common words in 32 point type.

Here's the relevant entry from Webster's: "psychol: the conscious
subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes."

<stupid insults snipped>

Cheers,

-dlj.

• Next message: Tintin: "Re: Please Chant This Shamanistic Chant With Us (at PIU)!"
• Previous message: Psycho Dave: "Re: PROBING"
• Maybe in reply to: William ALBERT: "terms"
• Next in thread: Errol Back-Cunningham: "Re: terms"