"Agenda"?

[Outlaw Heroes]

Don't you miss that option sometimes lol.

They replaced it, for you guys, with a few better options. Say what you will about being able to ignore someone, the guys with real power can delete their offending comments altogether. Even ban them. So I expect that you and Juke will manage just fine. (Though I have noticed that the mods around here, including you two, don't avail themselves of these neat little tools. Which is for the best, I suppose.)

 

[jterrell]

I have no problem if someone says player A is better then Player B in their opinon.

I DO have a problem and call a spade a spade when they will blindly dismiss any positives in player B to promote player A while also dismiss any negatives of Player A.

There ARE agendas on this board by some posters. I think they get so attached to arguments that it leads to an agenda, whether they realize it or not, to perserve the opinions that they held about said player to the point that they will lose any sense of being objective. In other words they get trapped after investing so much time and energy into an argument or player that they no longer can be objective in seeing any other point of view, to the point they will go to crazy levels to still argue their point of view on the player.

But hey...that is just my opinion.

I would not at all argue that there are not pig-headed folks who can not let go of their particular take and will do anything to promote their own opinion but being a pain in the butt, illogocal, irrational, stubborn et al is not equivalent to agenda.

The use of the term here is simply poor IMHO. It was simply an invention meant to insult without violating any rules.

The answer is simple. If someone is annoying close-minded just ignore them and let their threads collect dust til they disappear.

The agenda of these types of people has nothing to do with 1 QB, type of defense or CB, it is to argue with others. And the people who think differently are fooling themselves and playing a key role in person A's ability to carry on.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results....

 

[Juke99]

They replaced it, for you guys, with a few better options. Say what you will about being able to ignore someone, the guys with real power can delete their offending comments altogether. Even ban them. So I expect that you and Juke will manage just fine. (Though I have noticed that the mods around here, including you two, don't avail themselves of these neat little tools. Which is for the best, I suppose.)

Takes alot for us to pull the trigger on someone...this is a great group of moderators.

And even better, there are so few occasions where we feel the need to even warn people.

I know we say it over and over again, but this is quite an excellent group of members. It has become a selfmanaging site. You guys don't realize but you all set the tone for what goes on here. And you've all done an excellent job of it.


---jterrell is great!!! see usign my mod powers for evil!!!

 

[LaTunaNostra]

An agenda is a concern or preferred course of action that takes top priority, even when the subject at hand has nothing to do with it.

Discussions that get folded, spindled, and mutilated to fit the agenda are rife here.

What saves them from being annoying or infuriating is that they are not only predictable, but often hilarious.

So easily seen thru, they can be anticipated a season away. And as easily dismissed.

Agendas always expose themselves because by definition they are the antithesis of truth and common sense. They are obvious stupidity generated by bias.

Like blaming the line and Bledsoe's inadequacies on the receivers the other night... there's as ludicrous an agenda as you'll find.

 

[Juke99]

An agenda is a concern or preferred course of action that takes top priority, even when the subject at hand has nothing to do with it.

Discussions that get folded, spindled, and mutilated to fit the agenda are rife here.

What saves them from being annoying or infuriating is that they are not only predictable, but often hilarious.

So easily seen thru, they can be anticipated a season away. And as easily dismissed.

Agendas always expose themselves because by definition they are the antithesis of truth and common sense. They are obvious stupidity generated by bias.

Like blaming the line and Bledsoe's inadequacies on the receivers the other night... there's as ludicrous an agenda as you'll find.

You liked me "Bledsoe is a less gregarious version of Herman Munster" thought....I'm touched.

 

[jterrell]

An agenda is a concern or preferred course of action that takes top priority, even when the subject at hand has nothing to do with it.

Discussions that get folded, spindled, and mutilated to fit the agenda are rife here.

What saves them from being annoying or infuriating is that they are not only predictable, but often hilarious.

So easily seen thru, they can be anticipated a season away. And as easily dismissed.

Agendas always expose themselves because by definition they are the antithesis of truth and common sense. They are obvious stupidity generated by bias.

Like blaming the line and Bledsoe's inadequacies on the receivers the other night... there's as ludicrous an agenda as you'll find.

You are far too intelligent to be molesting the word

Etymology: Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerundive of agere
1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>

An agenda connotates a specific set of items to be achieved/accomplished/completed. Cicero was the most famous person that referred to agendum.

No one on this board is getting the top 5 Wide Receiver's cut, Bledsoe benched, Law signed, the 4-3 used a majority of the time or Bill Parcells/Mike Zimmer fired. Maybe they wish they could put that on an agenda but they do not have the power to do so. All they can do is continually spew their opinion on the subject. And they only succeed in doing so because folks want to argue the opposing side just as often.

Why argue with the totally absurd.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

You liked me "Bledsoe is a less gregarious version of Herman Munster" thought....I'm touched.

Yeah, your quip made me realize the strong resemblance..physical as well as personality.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

You are far too intelligent to be molesting the word

Etymology: Latin, neuter plural of agendum, gerundive of agere
1 : a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings>
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>

An agenda connotates a specific set of items to be achieved/accomplished/completed. Cicero was the most famous person that referred to agendum.

No one on this board is getting the top 5 Wide Receiver's cut, Bledsoe benched, Law signed, the 4-3 used a majority of the time or Bill Parcells/Mike Zimmer fired. Maybe they wish they could put that on an agenda but they do not have the power to do so. All they can do is continually spew their opinion on the subject. And they only succeed in doing so because folks want to argue the opposing side just as often.

Why argue with the totally absurd.

You need to go to the OED for samples of the equally common usages today that have extended from the original definition.

But actually, no one need to; we all know the myriad of ways the word can be used today, from a physical object that sits on your desk listing the daily plan of action, to a term connotating an objective based on often harmful self-interest, regardless of whether reaching that goal is under one's control.

There is a word change process known as semantic broadening and another one known as pejoration - the etymology of this word followed a not unusual path by incorporating both. It could yet undergo still another opposite historical process called amelioration - and take on a much positive meaning than it has today.

But I won't hold my breath on that one.

The word 'agenda' broadened to include a hoped for goal, not just one under immediate likelihood of accomplishment, and also took on a negative connotation (via relatively recent politcal usage) to refer to a narrow-minded, often harmful-to-the-general-good objective.

The term as used most frequently today is a broadening of definition 2, and since lexical items used to denote political practices or ideas often take on negative connotation, the pejorative change was probably inevitable.

Take it from your friendly neighborhood linguistics prof..the word is being used correctly by board members. That is, to refer to an objective, whether reachable or not, that transcends the greater good in order to further a special or personal interest.

The degree of usage, however, is a bit out of whack, imo.

 

[Juke99]

Yeah, your quip made me realize the strong resemblance..physical as well as personality.

And they both have about the same agility...

 

[jterrell]

You need to go to the OED for samples of the equally common usages today that have extended from the original definition.

But actually, no one need to; we all know the myriad of ways the word can be used today, from a physical object that sits on your desk listing the daily plan of action, to a term connotating an objective based on often harmful self-interest, regardless of whether reaching that goal is under one's control.

There is a word change process known as semantic broadening and another one known as pejoration - the etymology of this word followed a not unusual path by incorporating both. It could yet undergo still another opposite historical process called amelioration - and take on a much positive meaning than it has today.

But I won't hold my breath on that one.

The word 'agenda' broadened to include a hoped for goal, not just one under immediate likelihood of accomplishment, and also took on a negative connotation (via relatively recent politcal usage) to refer to a narrow-minded, often harmful-to-the-general-good objective.

The term as used most frequently today is a broadening of definition 2, and since lexical items used to denote political practices or ideas often take on negative connotation, the pejorative change was probably inevitable.

Take it from your friendly neighborhood linguistics prof..the word is being used correctly by board members. That is, to refer to an objective, whether reachable or not, that transcends the greater good in order to further a special or personal interest.

The degree of usage, however, is a bit out of whack, imo.

A lot of those happen and occur because of repeated incorrect uses

Agenda was never meant to be used as we are seeing it bandied about here and to do so is a vulgar broadening of the term. Again the connoted accomplishment is very much a historical requirement.

The agenda is often meant as a daily directive because of course it is simply a list of items to accomplish today. Agendas are not pie in the sky. When used as such it is an a joking manner. The ability to carry out the agenda is understood.

A meeting or discussion agenda is topics to be discussed today. That agenda will be different for the next meeting. When you say what is on the agenda, Today, is almost always attached and if not is understood. Class agendas are simply the course outline and are defined for 1 semester.

Agendas do not connote a broad long term extension of opinion/beliefs. It is eminently factual.

When you were addressing the "agenda" laden poster above note you switched to the passive tone because it simply would not sound right to word it as such otherwise.

Etymologically speaking...
1657, from L., lit. "things to be done," from neut. pl. of agendum, gerundive of agere (see act). Originally theological (opposed to matters of belief), sense of "items of business to be done at a meeting" first attested 1882.

As you can see the sense of the word opposes mere thoughts/opinions/feeling and is rooted in fact and action.

Bottom line is it is being used incorrectly (vulgarly at best) here.
Politics has taken agenda and twisted it but politics does that with almost everything. It does not make that use any more correct tho it is a popular one now. Even with that tho words have been allowed to have certian stretched meanings when attached to other words and political agenda is a different animal then just agenda.

If you do a google search on the word it will not be used again on first few pages as it is here.

To say someone has an agenda is in fact a positive thing. It means they are organized, goal-oriented and plan to accomplish things.

To say some knucklehead on a message board who just wants to argue has an agenda is seriously besmirching the word.

The ultimate test of agenda is the factor of accomplishment and time. If those 2 are not present then the word can not fit or else would be so broad as to have no real meaning at all.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

You gotta get a little closer in time to late 19th century to understand current colloquial usage, my friend. And to appreciate it.

Language is a living thing, unless we're talking 'bout your pal Cicero's lingo.

Linguists, btw, are not concerned with prescription, but with description.

There is no sucha animal as 'incorrect' usage in this particular case...you won't find William Safire, for example, pillorying 'agenda' as a malaprop, spoonerism, or mis-coined evil.

There is a highly used extended meaning..that does not include misusage OR vulgarity. It demonstrates the generative, recursive nature of language..how one generation after another makes its lexicon more meaningful.

Now, if you want to make the case the vulgarity consists of the repetitive use of the word, I could get on board.

Perhaps we could hold a membership ceremony for 'agenda' as provocative as that record producer's funeral event for 'def' a few years ago.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Main Entry: friv·o·lous
Pronunciation: 'fri-v&l-&s, -v&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin frivolus
1 a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2 a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
- friv·o·lous·ly adverb
- friv·o·lous·ness noun

Used in a sentence...

People on the Cowboyszone forum used their time frivolously by talking about the uses and semantics of the word...Agenda.

:

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Main Entry: friv·o·lous
Pronunciation: 'fri-v&l-&s, -v&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin frivolus
1 a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2 a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
- friv·o·lous·ly adverb
- friv·o·lous·ness noun

Used in a sentence...

People on the Cowboyszone forum used their time frivolously by talking about the uses and semantics of the word...Agenda.

:

LMAO!!

I'd love to see you at an annual linguistics conference, where one side of the stuff-shirted room is arguing that only the straightest referential meaning of a word gives its' 'true' definition, and the other half insisting we can't ever really understand a word's meaning w/o including both its' extension and intension.

I doubt I will ever see 'agenda' the focus of one of those hissy fits, tho. It's current broadening is way too direct for it even to get debated as an example of 'semantic shift'..a word taking on another, but related meaning (think of calling Torrin Tucker a 'turkey' and you get the idea)....another common word change process over-studied in historical linguistics.

There's much more exciting stuff, like the fact the word '*****' once referred to a lover of either sex, with no allusion to payments made. Or the narrowing of the middle English 'meat' (which once referred to all food) to now refer to animal protein only. (well, not only..but that's another of those secondary meanings.)

One of the great things about language is how it keeps up with the language community. We now use 'agenda' not just in the original, narrower sense, but, everyday to refer to a typically self-serving objective.

If someone comes up to me and says "hey, lady, you've got an agenda", I KNOW (and so does everyone else) that neither a leather bound pad nor a meeting plan is being referred to. The language community implicitly agrees on what a word means...the dictionaries follow after.

There is nothing right or wrong in that word change process. Just something very very human.

My guess on 'agenda' is it takes an even more negative track over time. A century from now, I wouldn't be surprised to see it's a synonym for 'vendetta'.

"Tuna", of course, will be synonymous for Absolute Power, wielded ruthlessly and unilaterally, regardless of any OCs-by-commitee.

 

[jterrell]

You gotta get a little closer in time to late 19th century to understand current colloquial usage, my friend. And to appreciate it.

Language is a living thing, unless we're talking 'bout your pal Cicero's lingo.

Linguists, btw, are not concerned with prescription, but with description.

There is no sucha animal as 'incorrect' usage in this particular case...you won't find William Safire, for example, pillorying 'agenda' as a malaprop, spoonerism, or mis-coined evil.

There is a highly used extended meaning..that does not include misusage OR vulgarity. It demonstrates the generative, recursive nature of language..how one generation after another makes its lexicon more meaningful.

Now, if you want to make the case the vulgarity consists of the repetitive use of the word, I could get on board.

Perhaps we could hold a membership ceremony for 'agenda' as provocative as that record producer's funeral event for 'def' a few years ago.

Actually I gave you both a current definition derived from Webster's and
the etymological definition which where eerily similar which suggests that the word is not as loosely defined as you choose to believe.

I understand you have a background in this area but you are providing nothing in the way of evidence to support your opinion. I would love to see anyone produce a document of any intellectual merit using the term agenda as it is used here.

There are linguists on both sides of the coin. Not all believe so steadfastly in unchecked evolution and choose as you mention to argue for words holding their meanings. I side with the purists.

My personal interest is in historical literature and philosophy writings which require precise definitions of the words involved in many cases.

I would agree that there will not be big arguments over the use of the agenda because I do not think many intelligent people consider a use as we have seen here more than gibberish.

 

[jterrell]

Main Entry: friv·o·lous
Pronunciation: 'fri-v&l-&s, -v&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin frivolus
1 a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2 a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
- friv·o·lous·ly adverb
- friv·o·lous·ness noun

Used in a sentence...

People on the Cowboyszone forum used their time frivolously by talking about the uses and semantics of the word...Agenda.

:

At least you now know where the online dictionary is meathead.

:laugh2:

 

[Nors]

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=agenda

I think this highlights why Agenda is not being used properly. But whatever - I am soon to unveil a heinous, over the top word to replace agenda.

Coming SOON.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

Actually I gave you both a current definition derived from Webster's and
the etymological definition which where eerily similar which suggests that the word is not as loosely defined as you choose to believe.

Where did I exactly describe the word as 'loosely' defined?

It is fairly concretely defined, only the entire etymology was not provided.
See the OED. Websters is not the definitive etymological source, and doesn't even seek to be.

There is, btw, no 'etymological definition". All words have an etymology (an origin and a growth..some much more exciting than others.) The original definition of a word is not its etymology. It is its 'birth'.

The current most common use of the word is directly related to the original meaning. Direct extension.

What exactly are you arguing, JT? (and really, my curiosity is piqued as to why).

Are you denying that the usage each and every one of us is familiar with is a figment of our imaginations?

That we DON'T hear and ourselves use the word to denote self-interested motivations everyday?

Are you arguing again it is an "incorrect" usage? If so, keep in mind it is the language community that controls semantic meaning. If we, as a language community decide that the word 'up' will heretofor mean 'down' and use it in that way enough to cement that meaning, 'up' will indeed be the new word for 'down'. People create words, and their meanings, not vice versa.

Words, JT, are arbitrary symbols. They can be, and are, assigned any meaning the collective desires. It is our language community that has assigned the broadened meaning to 'agenda'.

Are you denying that that is the case?

I understand you have a background in this area but you are providing nothing in the way of evidence to support your opinion.

I make my living in this field...but that doesn't mean I don't value the layman 'opinion'. I , however, am not giving my 'opinion' professionally or otherwise. I am stating what every one reading this already knows about the word in its current usage.

Are you saying the common sense realization and admission of how the word is currently often used is my "opinon". Then it is an opinion shared by everyone in 21st century America.

JT, if over and over and over and over and over, you hear people use the word 'bad' to connote 'good', (he's baaaddd) then could you overlook such an example of language extension?

I would love to see anyone produce a document of any intellectual merit using the term agenda as it is used here.

Are you kidding? The common vernacular is not enough? Yu haven't heard it used thusly in cinema, news casting and everyday speech? We here at the Zone are the only ones who use the wotd in this way? What we all know as functioning adults about the word usage is not enough?

But if you need an "intellectual document" to convince yourself of what we all already know, see the OED.

How exactly do you define 'intellectual document" anyway? It is common usage, I repeat, that governs the rules of word change, not some monk toiling over a medieval manuscript. What CAN be documented (once more, check the OED..it is still the definitive source) are some of the first recorded times a word was used in a new context. Nowhere will there be an 'intellectual' chronicle of the millions of times we use the word in the 'new' way..just millions of usages in speech and literature. That should be 'intellectual' enough, as intellect is solely the province of humanity and the divine.

There are linguists on both sides of the coin.

Name some. I know none that would even argue that the meaning has not been extended. How could they? LOL The next time someone asks you in a sarcastic tone if you have an agenda, are you going to take out an afternoon business plan? No, because we ALL know the current extension.

Not all believe so steadfastly in unchecked evolution and choose as you mention to argue for words holding their meanings.

Please define 'unchecked evolution'. I have never heard such a term. There are epochs of history in which language change and word borrowings are more rapid than in others - wartime and its aftermath, for example, or periods when new technologies are expanding, or cultural spurts like the hip-hop phenomenon, but semantics do not undergo anything like 'unchecked evolution". We'd be back to the Tower of Babel if this were so.

Evolution of word meaning follows very specific paths, if not predictable ones.
Who could have imagined that 'mischievous' would go from 'disastrous' to 'playfully annoying'. or 'fond' from 'foolish' to 'affectionate"? The ends (which we stil don't know on any word) are mysterious, but the routes are limited.

A word's meaning can broaden (an 'aunt' was once only your father's sister), narrow (become less inclusive over time, as 'meat' did), ameliorate (the word 'pretty' once meant sly or tricky), pejorate ('silly' in MIddle English was a synonym for prosperous or happy), or take on metphoric life, (as in 'high').

But words just don't up and mutate in a vacuum. PEOPLE searching for a better (clearer, or more nuanced) way of espressing themslves dictate the changes.

I side with the purists.

You got me. I know who the 'quarterback purists" are. But have NO idea who the lingust purists are. Would you mind explaining that one to me? Are these folks those who refuse to acknowledge a word has changed in meaning, or added a related second meaning, or taken on a whole new meaning?

Then the only 'purists' would have to be dead ones.

My personal interest is in historical literature and philosophy writings which require precise definitions of the words involved in many cases.

JT, what you seem to be unable to accept is broadening expands meaning. And that is a GOOD thing. The very definition of this historical process implies addition, not subtraction. But broadening by no means has to hinder clarity.
Certain scientific vocab may be metaphoricized, but there won't be any trifling with the denotation of 'heart', for instance. And as for philosophers, every good one from Aristotle to Aquinas to Kant to Sartre made very sure we got the meaning of his particular definition of 'reality'.

But more importantly, we have something called context, JT, by which we can easily decide if the 'trunk' being referred to is the base of a tree, an elephant's nose, the rear of the car, or a large piece of luggage. Those are mulitple meanings of the same word but a broadened word meaning is just as easily understood from context.

I would agree that there will not be big arguments over the use of the agenda because I do not think many intelligent people consider a use as we have seen here more than gibberish.

The use as we have seen here is directly in line with the use in the much wider public domain. 'Many intelligent people' most certainly DO use the word as used here. The word 'agenda' is used in this way today across class lines, racial and ethnic lines, regional dialects, and age groups.

It is not gibberish; it is clear and 'meaningful' (agreed on by our North American languge community) usage.

You may not LIKE the current expanded usage, but no one can deny it exists.

CAN they, JT?

 

[LaTunaNostra]

PS JT....I just realized unless you have college library net access, you probably don't have access to thE OED. And the bastids charge about 1500.00 a year for personal subscriptions.

_____________________________________

a. Pl. of AGEND (sense 3), treated as a singular. Also transf., a (notional) list of things to be done, of appointments, etc.; freq. in phr. on the agenda. Cf. AGEND 1.

1907 N.U.T. Conference Agenda (Oxford) 30 This Conference protests against the action of the Executive in printing Supplementary Agendas for Conference. 1928 Daily Express 13 Jan. 1/1 Further conferences are to follow with..the Trade Union Council to tabulate agendas and settle difficulties. 1928 Observer 1 July 30/5 It sometimes happens that an agenda promises sensations. 1957 E. HYAMS Into Dream II. ii. 101 It's a short agenda, by the way, only two items. 1961 in Millikan & Blackmer Emerging Nations x. 140 The agenda of external assistance in the economic sphere are cumulative. 1962 [see DRINK n. 8]. 1963 Times Rev. Industry June 3/1 Union agendas are increasingly devoted to industrial and economic issues. 1972 T. KENEALLY Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith i. 2 The epoch-old agenda of ceremonies was kept a secret from all the women. 1975 B. BAINBRIDGE Sweet William i. 7 Mrs Walton said she hadn't a spare moment. She had a busy agenda. 1982 Sci. Amer. Sept. 45/2 The issue is once again high on the agenda of the West German trade unions.


b. attrib., as agenda-paper, the paper containing the agenda of a meeting.


1887 Westmor. Gaz. 10 Dec. 2/5 (Stanf.), The next business stated on the agenda paper was to sign a petition [etc.]. 1905 Westm. Gaz. 24 July 2/2 The Czar..and the Kaiser..are meeting to-day... We are not given the agenda-paper of their conversation.



DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2003


agenda, n.

A campaign, programme, or plan of action arising from underlying principles, motivations, etc. Hence: the set of underlying motives or ideals of a particular individual or group. Freq. attrib.
hidden agenda: see *HIDDEN ppl. a. political agenda: see *POLITICAL a.


1976 Newsweek 19 Apr. 23/1 Their hope is that the party, given a choice between the two, would opt for youth and freshness. ‘Those folks who have their own agenda for Hubert underestimate Jerry Brown’, says one California politician. 1986 P. CONROY Prince of Tides vii. 154 She enlisted me as an agent in her unformulated agenda against both her family and Colleton. 1991 C. PAGLIA Sex, Art, & Amer. Culture (1992) 73 That girl had her own agenda..trying to glom onto the Kennedy glamour! 1995 A. WEINER Richard Wagner & Anti-Semitic Imagination (1997) 350 His bodily representations of commonality and difference will continue to evoke, perhaps persuasively, his racist agenda. 2002 UFO Mag. Jan. 31/2 Newberg declines to say whether he has religious beliefs, arguing that such a revelation would prompt accusations of an agenda.

Agenda 21 [in reference to the 21st century], an internationally agreed action plan for environmental protection and sustainable development, adopted by the 179 governments represented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992; cf. *Earth Charter s.v. EARTH n.1

1990 EPA Jrnl. July-Aug. 63/2 One principle [sic] product of the conference will be an agenda for action by the world community for the remainder of this decade and the beginning of the 21st century‘*Agenda 21’. 1994 Britannica Bk. of Year 185/1 The June 1994 deadline for drawing up the desertification treaty and action plan called for in Agenda 21 was not met, but the convention was agreed and signed in October. 2002 Jakarta (Indonesia) Post (Electronic ed.) 28 May, The General Assembly of the United Nations has agreed to review and improve the implementation of Agenda 21 after ten years.

_________________________
The "set of underlying ideals or MOTIVES of a particular individual or group" is how we gibberishers use the word here, of course.

 

[Zaxor]

Am not sure if I should throw this thought out there... as many already think I am off the wall now to prove it

One has to first ask oneself if words have power... or do their meanings have power

If words have power than one must assume that only the proper usage of the word spoken, written or sung would than have power....

If it is the meaning that has power than any descriptive word would do as long as it conveyed the meaning...

If it is as I suspect.. a mixture of both.. than an argument over meaning vs. proper usage can never be won nor should it be waged

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I dunno, Zaxor..the word only holds the power we give it..the real power is the idea, concept, or referent behind the word.

I'm gonna git me one of dem 'agenduhs' tho.

Gotta be a QBin' one too.

How's this:

Crayton for QB?

Be on the look out for my posts....I'll manage to get it in somehow.