Let's List the Most Misused Words in the English Language

[Wiglaf]

If you read the transcript of his testimony, he makes several substantive statements. You people seem to have this notion he just said he couldn't remember anything. In reality, most of what he could not remember was trivial.

E.g.

FEINGOLD: Yes. Are you planning to have the department's Office of Professional Responsibility review this case that I just...

GONZALES: Senator, I don't recall whether there's been action on that, but I'd be happy to consider that.

GONZALES: Senator, what I recall is telling Mr. Sampson, "Make sure the White House is appropriately advised, because these are political appointees," and telling him that I expected him to consult with the senior leadership at the department, people who would know best the qualifications, the performance of United States attorneys.

FEINGOLD: This is what you told him to do, but I'm asking whether you checked back with him after he did it.

GONZALES: Senator, I can't recall whether or not at the time he made the recommendations that I said "Does this -- who did you consult with and whose recommendations are these?"

I'll tell you what I understood. What I understood..

FEINGOLD: Did you, at any time prior to your meeting on November 27th, 2006, ask for a report in writing on the progress of the project?

GONZALES: I don't recall asking for a report in writing.

GONZALES: Senator, what I understood was that the recommendations reflected the consensus judgment of the senior leadership of the department and that, therefore, the senior leadership had lost confidence in these individuals and thus the department had lost confidence.

If these major points (that the department had lost confidence in the attorneys) were completely false, he'd be in jail. He's not

Saying 'I don't recall' over very specific, unnecessary things is a good way to get out of accidentally perjuring yourself over something dumb.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
BLAAAAT. "Should recall" doesn't get you a perjury conviction. "Does recall" is needed. And how does a prosecutor prove that?

BS, if you can compile a mountain of evidence (emails, memos, testimony, etc.) showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in X's objective circumstances would "recall" even if X subjectively purports not to, that's enough to sustain a conviction. Hell, even evidence that X has a very excellent memory can be admitted so as to modify that characteristics of the "reasonable person" in the instant case.

People get convicted of all sorts of crimes, including perjury, for mere circumstantial inferences all the time. The only problem is that there isn't such a mountain of evidence in Gonzales' case; whether it is too difficult to find or simply never existed is another question no one here is in a position to answer. Of course, another problem is whether any US Attorney would bother to prosecute the man even if it would be a slam-dunk, given the stocked pond of yes-men that initiated this whole controversy in the first place. It'd be a huge career risk, and it'd be for little practical gain since Gonzales already retired anyway.

That being said, according to OIG criminal charges haven't been taken off the table just yet, so who knows what the investigation's uncovered so far.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Ninot
Gay

I agree with this.

It's mostly kids who use this, but it still irritates me. Like "This thing is so gay". If you want to disparage something, you can say it's foolish. You can say it's poorly made. Or you can say it's ill-planned.

Leave sexual preferences out of it, unless that's specifically what you're referring to.

[SlowwHand]

To say nothing of happy. That's right. Gay has already been stolen.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


I agree with this.

It's mostly kids who use this, but it still irritates me. Like "This thing is so gay". If you want to disparage something, you can say it's foolish. You can say it's poorly made. Or you can say it's ill-planned.

Leave sexual preferences out of it, unless that's specifically what you're referring to.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "odd" a meaning of gay? We can help it if your filthy mind construes an innuendo that simply isn't there.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I have never, ever heard the word "gay" used to mean "odd".

I have heard it used in a general derogatory sense, which is what I disapprove of.

[Cort Haus]

Already. (US version)

[Quintillus]

Originally posted by Monk
What do you mean we can't smoke on top of the petrol tank when the label says it's highly inflammable?

Haha, yeah, they really need to stop using the word inflammable...too risky.

"Breaking news" is one of the most overused and, because of that, misused, words on American news TV. Seems like about 85% of the stories are "breaking news".

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I have never, ever heard the word "gay" used to mean "odd".

I have heard it used in a general derogatory sense, which is what I disapprove of.

Queer = odd

Gay = happy

Many otherwise decent kids use "gay" as a general insult. I find it disappointing.

[Darius871]

Premise 1: Odd = Queer
Premise 2: Queer = Gay
Conclusion: Odd = Gay

Prove me wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

So if we say, that's so lame we are insulting cripples?

[onodera]

Yes. Using the word lame when not talking about people who have leg problems is gay.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Quintillus


Haha, yeah, they really need to stop using the word inflammable...too risky.

Are you guys making the point that inflammable is not a word or can you just not spell imflammable in your making of the point about imflammable and flammable being the same thing?



I want you to give benefit of the doubt, as I like the irony.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Darius871
Premise 1: Odd = Queer
Premise 2: Queer = Gay
Conclusion: Odd = Gay

Prove me wrong.

Sure: I dispute your unstated premise on the transitivity of synonymity.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Darius871
Premise 1: Odd = Queer
Premise 2: Queer = Gay
Conclusion: Odd = Gay

Prove me wrong.

Transitive logical fallacy. This is similar to saying "nothing is perfect, I am nothing, ergo I am perfect".

Taken to its extreme, this logical trick becomes absurd:

1. Whore = Tramp
2. Tramp = Bum
3. Bum = Fanny
4. Fanny = Puh-seh

Thus, "prostitute" is the same as "vagina". Somewhat farfetched.

We used to play a similar game back in grade school before we were made aware of the massive logical incongruity inherent in the transition. (Although to be honest we probably wouldn't have stopped doing it.)

Person A: You jerk!
Person B: (1.) A jerk is a tug, (2.) a tug is a boat, (3.) boats go on water, and (4.) water is beautiful. Thank you for the compliment!

This usually ends in a richly-deserved fistfight.

Back on track... your point would be correct if I had been talking about the word "queer" specifically. If you're going to include synonyms of misused words, they'd have to be analyzed on their own merits. "Homosexual" is a word that I have relatively few problems with because it's generally used nonpejoratively to refer to a person's factual sexual preferences. (This may be because it's got too many syllables to be an effective slur.)