RE: Man quits job over bad woo
February 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm
(This post was last modified: February 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm by Violet.)
(February 10, 2013 at 11:57 am)John V Wrote: @ Violet:
BTW, has it crossed your mind that, if you were really living as a woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as I wouldn't know otherwise?
Sorry, busy having too much sex to care
(February 10, 2013 at 10:55 am)John V Wrote: I was headed to law next as well. In another thread you stated that you could have difficulty getting a job. Why? Are you legally required to check "Male" on an application? If not, and if you're all woman except for the crotch, what's the problem?
I could have difficulty getting a job... mostly because I haven't been arsed to move to California and get my stats updated. So my legal status is rather inaccurate now, and inaccurate data on one's legal information tends to turn off potential employers.
Texas is a problem, but I'm stuck here
(February 9, 2013 at 6:20 pm)John V Wrote: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition...?q=atheism
Definition of atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Yeah, that's the accurate info. Unlike what my built-in apple dictionary tells me
Quote:They agree pretty well on atheism and woman.
New Oxford American gives "an adult human female" as first definition for woman. SOund familiar? For female it says, "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
Because humans with XX chromosomes, but lacking gametes, are clearly not female
Quote:Dictionaries typically have committees that watch current publications for usage changes and make annual updates.
Note that I'm not saying you're wrong to use words as you do. You can use them any way you like. You're wrong to insist that other people bow down to your usage even though your usage is demonstrably outside the mainstream.
Annual updates for words that appeared in mainstream 10 years ago
Because the first people to insist that 2 was prime were wrong, the man to suggest washing one's hands in hospitals was wrong, and copernicus/galileo and co were wrong.
My definitions are demonstrably true, that they are demonstrably not 'mainstream' is irrelevent to their correctness. We're not about to commit to arguments from establishment or authority here, are we?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
