Slashdot Mirror

Only to clarify that by "native English" I meant people from England, as opposed to any other definition

Mathematics (pl.) originally denoted the mathematical sciences collectively, including geometry, astronomy, optics. Math is the Amer.Eng. shortening, attested from 1890; the British preference, maths is attested from 1911.

A republic, if you can keep it

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Gun control is indeed tangential to Bush's illegal domestic spying. But I don't mind talking about it.

Another interesting, and on-topic, archaic word from the Constitution is "misdemeanors". Demeanor used to mean "leadership" as well as "publicly presented appearance". While "looking bad in public" is still a serious crime in government ("appearance of improper conduct" laws govern most ethics rules), the original sense of "misleadership" was much more weighty when the founders signed the Constitution.

Bush can be impeached for his well-documented crimes of misleadership, if not for his mountain of evidence of "appearance of improper conduct".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mathemati c

Of course, here's a differing view (section 1 is the etymology):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

Have fun!

In fact, it's what "entrepreneur" means. That's a word whose original meaning is not so muchy lost as deliberately concealed. An entrepreneur is someone who tries to insert himself in a flow - of cash, a commodity or other resource - and then act as the gatekeeper, thus making money. Because it means "taker in the middle".

No, that's not what entrepreneur means. It's derrived from the same french word enterprise in derrived from - entreprendre, to undertake.

See the Online etymology dictioanry.

Actually, while the word comes from French and "centre" is the French spelling, the original English spelling was "center". But leave it to England (or, specifically, Dr. Samuel Johnson) to choose the less-phonetic, more-French spelling.

http://etymonline.com/?term=center

Likewise:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theater

And for some reason, they prefer the French "metre" and "litre", but use an anglicized "gram" instead of "gramme". They haven't made up their mind between "programme" and "program" yet -- and it's hard to blame them, since at this point it's a choice between being more French or more American, which are no doubt equally distasteful options.

Actually, while the word comes from French and "centre" is the French spelling, the original English spelling was "center". But leave it to England (or, specifically, Dr. Samuel Johnson) to choose the less-phonetic, more-French spelling.

http://etymonline.com/?term=center

Likewise:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theater

And for some reason, they prefer the French "metre" and "litre", but use an anglicized "gram" instead of "gramme". They haven't made up their mind between "programme" and "program" yet -- and it's hard to blame them, since at this point it's a choice between being more French or more American, which are no doubt equally distasteful options.

Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.

Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.

You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant

You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.

Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discomfit
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hobby
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horrid

These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.

-------

"Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:

the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi

Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.

Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.

You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant

You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.

Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discomfit
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hobby
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horrid

These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.

-------

"Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:

the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi

Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.

Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.

You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant

You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.

Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discomfit
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hobby
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horrid

These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.

-------

"Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:

the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi

demon 1387, from L. dæmon "spirit," from Gk. daimon (gen. daimonos) "lesser god, guiding spirit, tutelary deity,".. Source

English inherited the Latin pronunciation and later underwent the Great Vowel Shift raising /e/ to /i/ (long 'e' as in ape to long 'i' as in eat), /dem@n/ became /dim@n/ and thus daemon and demon are the same word.

For the record, I pronounce and spell it the Latin way (without using an actual ae-ligature, naturally).

p.s.: pardon the X-SAMPA, Slashdot's lack of Unicode support is rather pathetic for '07.

They didn't say it was "terrorism" just that it is like it. It is you who seems unclear about the definition as you say "People discussing ways to blow things up is not terrorism" but then refer to terrorism as meaning "organised violence".

In my book, using violence or threat of violence to1 take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons. Selling counterfeit CDs can be piracy if you stole them from a ship.

Your book is very, very old and incomplete. The term "pirate" has been used to mean "one who takes another's work without permission" since 1701. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate.

One more: Who else despairs about the state of the education system when people don't know the meaning and etymology of tetra- without examples? Do the d4 rollers know what a tetrapod without comparing it to various monsters?

The term "piracy" has been used to describe copyright and similar infringements since 1701. I suppose it's time to get used to this usage.

(See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pirate)

No, they are old norse of origin, i.e. pre-Swedish.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ombudsm an&searchmode=none

"tennants"

Tenets. Tennants are people who live in a building owned by someone else.

The term "Gas" was coined by Chemist Jan Baptist van Helmont as a phonetic spelling of the flemish pronunciation for the Greek word for chaos. Based upon it's original definiton, gasoline, or gas makes perfect sense. After tall, it's not as abiguous as tele, do they mene television or telephone. Or rubbers, these are the boots you wear on your feet, not the condoms, but boots are rear storage areas of an automobile. Finally, petrol isn't even British, it was borrowed from the French. So here's a two finger salute to you.

http://www.bookrags.com/Gas
http://www.bookrags.com/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=etymology+gas oline

Will you hear or see that happening ? With jay walkers not being able to face their accusers in court, because their right to habeas corpus is suspended ?

Like we haven't heard about Jose Padilla?

Of course, we all know that once it gets suspended (not that it has), we'll never EVER get it back. Good thing it has NEVER happened before!

American Society for Microbiology site, your leading news source for everything between nano and macro.

c.1300, "malformed animal, creature afflicted with a birth defect," from O.Fr. monstre, from L. monstrum "monster, monstrosity, omen, portent, sign," from root of monere "warn" (see monitor). Abnormal or prodigious animals were regarded as signs or omens of impending evil. Extended c.1385 to imaginary animals composed of parts of creatures (centaur, griffin, etc.). Meaning "animal of vast size" is from 1530; sense of "person of inhuman cruelty or wickedness" is from 1556. In O.E., the monster Grendel was an aglæca, a word related to aglæc "calamity, terror, distress, oppression."

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=monster

See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot. What is the likelihood of a significant portion of the military defecting after watching their friend get his head blown off by their commander, with the gun is now pointed directly at them?

I'm sure as a slashdot reader, you are familiar with the word frag, but maybe not it's origins. That's how soldiers would handle their commanding officers in the past (especially the dangerous, "follow-this-illegal-order-or-die" kind of officer).

Maybe you need to check your facts regarding egghead since it appears to be American slang. Not unless you were trying to indirectly suggest I'm a Nazi sympathizer. There's enough anti-intellectuals (or people who don't know there facts) in this country.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberti ne&searchmode=none

....means what you think it means.

Decimate: the removal or destruction of one-tenth.

So US IT jobs are more than being Decimated.

</Word Nerd^WNazi>

(from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hear)
"...Hear, hear! (1689) was originally imperative, used as an exclamation to call attention to a speaker's words; now a general cheer of approval..."

But, it IS a good show and I've managed to, at one time or another, see all but the (traditionally) "missing episodes" and the rest of "season two" (in reality the twenty-eighth season - http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/SciFi/DrWho/epi sodes.html)

A plausible story that could be full of shit.

I've always wondered this, and now is as good a time as any to ask. (please pardon the off-topic)

When & where was the that first history-making occasion when feces was introduced to moving fan blades, and what were the circumstances surrounding it?

I've tried to research this, but all I get are articles on world politics, but I did uncover this.

Heh. For my fellow Yanks who don't have the priviledge of being constantly exposed to British slang, toss doesn't mean to throw something.

Engineers and Architects in the IT field go to school just as long to learn their professions or they spend long hours learning them the hard way. They get the right to use words in our language to describe them like: Engineer and Architect.

Is not someone who is able to design a business system ingenious? Is not someone able to construct a corporate network a "master builder"? You don't Architect a home network the same way you don't Architect a tool shed and you don't Engineer a shell script the same way you don't Engineer a rubber band gun.

In short, its the English language and this is how its used. Deal with the vernacular bub.

pornography
1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie, from Gk. pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution;" related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root per- "to traffic in, to sell," cf. L. pretium "price") + graphein "to write." Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality. Pornographer is earliest form of the word, attested from 1850. Pornocracy (1860) is "the dominating influence of harlots," used specifically of the government of Rome during the first half of the 10th century by Theodora and her daughters. -- online Etymology Dictionary: Pornography

neither time nor thyme.

Actually the spelling of "time" as I spell it, "tyme", is Old English. I came across the spelling years ago when I was in high school, I found it in the full edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary" and have used it since. Actually the first tyme I used it for a writing class the teacher took off points for what she said was a spelling err, so I dragged her down to the library and showed her the spelling in the OED. After that she got in the habit of checking the dictionary everytime I spelled a word differently than normal.

I love and grow herbs and used to hangout with others that did too and some of them suggested I use the spelling "thyme" as well. I've thought of it but it has a totally different meaning, while I sometimes spell words differently than "normal" I still use correct spelling for a meaning. As with "color", I use "colour". Since I ran into the OED I've been interested in etymology.

pornography

1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie, from Gk. pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution;" related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root per- "to traffic in, to sell," cf. L. pretium "price") + graphein "to write." Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality. Pornographer is earliest form of the word, attested from 1850. Pornocracy (1860) is "the dominating influence of harlots," used specifically of the government of Rome during the first half of the 10th century by Theodora and her daughters.

-- Pornography: Online Etymology Dictionary

"If the truth were known about the origin of the word 'Jazz' it would never be mentioned in polite society."

To spare you clicking the link, it's said to be derived from Creole patois "jass" for sexual intercourse and tightly related to "jism".

will release a patch to fix THIS viral attack REAL soon...

BTW, I "did a Google" and searched for "etymology veritas" and got page that said, "truth, goddess of truth"

I clicked the URL, and veritas is not there...but, verity is...

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=v&p=3

I guess etymonline needs to "verify" their listings...
------

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/v/veritas.html

does have it, and Romans appear in the definition. I guess Symantec is going to feel the IRS is the new rear-reaming Romans.

--

But, makes you wonder... who piqued the IRS' attention. A "slip" of the tongue in Ireland? I guess some dragons will be getting slain... Imagine the IRS auditors salivating and rubbing their hands in glee (to Austin Powers.. with a little bit of Ren/Stimpy voice thrown in (Or, if you like, Simon Bar Sinister...)): "You owe US.. **O**N**E** BEEL-YUN dollars...(YEE--hee--haah--haah-haah-haah...)"

I bet the Symantec eyes POPPED out at that board meeting.

Moral of the story about rampant M&A activity: Don't lie about the assets value, OR, just don't make the purchase/acquisition...

Interesting: word image: "backyard"

1701 according to the Online Etymology Dictionary

Mailing hard drives, tapes, Blu-ray discs, or other removable media is just a high-latency, high-packet-size data link, with routing handled by a parcel courier. Define "offline" in such a way as to exclude sneakernet.

The common usage of "online" doesn't include sneakernet - it's already been defined that way by society. A reasonable person familiar with the Internet knows the difference between online and offline, and knows that a copy on a CD or whatever isn't online, and that's the way the court will look at it.

Besides, the post office has been around for hundreds of years, while the word "online", which is specifically used in the statute, has only been around for just over 50 years. Whatever screwy explanation you might come up with to hammer a round peg into a square hole won't fly in court.

The word "Coca-Cola" was not in the lexicon before Coca-Cola was created. It is a combination of words that is quite unique and has a lot of value that is distinct to a particular product.

The word "Apple" is not distinct. An apple is a piece of fruit. According to Etymology.com it has been a word since 1300. 770 years of common use pretty much makes the word "apple" up for grabs.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=apple&s earchmode=none
apple Look up apple at Dictionary.com
        O.E. æppel "apple," from P.Gmc. *ap(a)laz (cf. O.Fris., Du. appel, O.N. eple, O.H.G. apful, Ger. Apfel), from PIE *ab(e)l "apple" (cf. Gaul. avallo, O.Ir. ubull, Lith. obuolys, O.C.S. jabloko), but the exact relation and original sense of these is uncertain. Gk. melon and L. malum are probably from a pre-I.E. Mediterranean language. A generic term for all fruit, other than berries but including nuts, as late as 17c., hence its use for the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis. Cucumbers, in one O.E. work, are eoræppla, lit. "earth-apples" (cf. Fr. pomme de terre "potato," lit. "earth-apple;" see also melon). Fr. pomme is from L. pomum "fruit."

                "A roted eppel amang e holen, make rotie e yzounde." ["Ayenbite of Inwit," 1340]

        Apple of Discord (c.1400) was thrown into the wedding of Thetis and Peleus by Eris (goddess of chaos and discord), who had not been invited, and inscribed kallisti "To the Prettiest One." Paris, elected to choose which goddess should have it, gave it to Aphrodite, offending Hera and Athene, with consequences of the Trojan War, etc. Apple of one's eye (O.E.), symbol of what is most cherished, was the pupil, supposed to be a globular solid body. Apple-polisher "one who curries favor" first attested 1928 in student slang.

Just FYI, it's capiche. Don't worry, my spellchecker doesn't know it either.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=capiche

faggot (2)

To me, the way it's always been used is more in line with:

Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," -- from the definition.

This is important because in this meaning of the word it means that the person uttering the epithet and the person who the epithet is used against are both going to participate in a homosexual act and only one of them consensually. I.e. it means "I am going to anally rape you."

In fact, if you notice a lot of anti-homosexual slurs are along these lines, for example "I'm going to make you my bitch," doesn't really say anything about the sexual preferences of the person being "made a bitch." It's almost always homosexual rape imagery. Why people consider this the height of masculinity (in American culture), I'll never know.

BTW, "nice" and "mean" have exactly the definition that most people expect. You can also use slang/informal definitions that suit your purposes... but that is called sarcasm. "Nice" is a positive adjective, and "mean" is a negative one, with the only other adjective form being the mathematical one.

BTW, "nice" and "mean" have exactly the definition that most people expect. You can also use slang/informal definitions that suit your purposes... but that is called sarcasm. "Nice" is a positive adjective, and "mean" is a negative one, with the only other adjective form being the mathematical one.

Shit and crap are EXACTLY the same thing. Why is one a 'cuss word' and the other merely another word for excrement?

Maybe this has something to do with it. Check this shit out. some more crap here

Shit and crap are EXACTLY the same thing. Why is one a 'cuss word' and the other merely another word for excrement?

Maybe this has something to do with it. Check this shit out. some more crap here

Holocaust is a Greek word.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holocaust

If Yiddish speakers refer to the holocaust they will probably call it by the accepted Hebrew term "shoah" (2 syllable, emphasis on the "ah" bit) which means "disaster".

Actually, real Yiddish speakers these days are basically only the Hassidim, so they'd probably pronounce it "shoioh".

unscrupulous lawyer 1843, U.S. slang, probably altered from Ger. Scheisser "incompetent worthless person," from Scheisse "shit," from O.H.G. skizzan "to defecate" (see shit).

shyster--'shIs-t Etymology: probably from German Scheisser, literally, defecator
: one who is professionally unscrupulous especially in the practice of law or politics : PETTIFOGGER

You're not helping anyone. You make people with a legitimate beef look petty and you present people with no bad intentions at all as anti-semitic (or specifically anti-Jewish, as there are a lot more semitic people than just Jews).
Now, go into a closet and say "niggardly" a hundred times.

Defin i tely. With an I. As in, related to the word define. As in, "There is definitely no letter A in the word 'definitely.'"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=define

"Britt bent his data to fit his hypothesis."

Do you have any decent evidence to support this hypothesis? I'm not saying he hasn't, merely that your arguments seem deeply flawed, and are therefore no basis to allege such a conclusion.

"Why else would characteristic 3 include "terrorists" as a scapegoat when the regimes he allegedly used for the study never focused on such a group?"

Maybe because back then the word "terrorist" wasn't thrown around with quite such wild abandon as these days? Thesaurus.com gives us such synonyms as "agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary" and "anarchist", and these have been used as scapegoats by authority figures since the beginning of time.

It's also interesting that Fascist states seem to have more problems with terrorists than non-fascist states, due primarily to their repressive and authoritarian actions.

"And since when is being a terrorist-- by definition someone who kills, steals, and destroys to force an agenda-- defensible? Are terrorists victims now? Lumping terrorists in with ethnic minorities and "liberals" (nice one, Larry) is suspect."

The point I think he's trying to make is not that these things are acceptable, but that they're scapegoated for things they didn't necessarily do, or their level of threat is wildly exaggerated to permit the authorities to become more repressive and have the population simply accept it.

Scapegoated has a different meaning from "rightly blamed", and scapegoating is always bad.

"Also, scratch number 4 (after all, the liberals keep telling me we didn't allocate enough troops to Iraq or Afghanistan originally and that costs money)"

Number 4 is not strongly so in the case of the US. Nevertheless:

1) Hypothetically, merely because the opposition is also arguing for a single "fascist" element that doesn't mean the party in power isn't also tending towards fascism. In addition, the "liberals" were initially campaigning not to go into Iraq. Now they've failed (and your troops are there), they're campaigning to at least give them enough equipment to have a chance of staying alive. This is very different to prioritising the overwhelming supremacy of the military, which is what the point is all about.

2) Bush is spending a disproportionate amount of money (and raising international tension) developing new high-tech military gadgets like bunker-buster nukes, SDI defence systems and the like.

The keyphrase here is "supremacy of the military", not "having more soldiers than anyone else", or "well-funding all aspects of the military equally".

"number 6 (please point out the state-sponsored censorship in the NYT, LA Times, or Air America Radio)"

Point six says "controlled mass media", not "rigid censorship". In fact it explicitely goes on to state "in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives".

I'm not being offensive, but did you even read the linked article, or just decide you didn't like what it was saying and skim over a few words of it?

"number 10 (haven't seen troops breaking up strikes lately)"

Granted, this doesn't apply too strongly to the US, but then the "labour vs. bosses" fight was largely over many years ago, and workers now have certin rights enshrined in law. In reaction, corporations are simply off-shoring jobs to third-world countries with no such labour laws (and cheaper expenses), as fast as they can. Several Bush economic policies have also eased this flood, not stemmed it.

"The rest could conceivably be argued by some radicals."

Hehehehe, are you serious? I'd have said the following

I don't take hacking as being about only computers. To me a hack can be most any unusual trick like what phreaks did with phones. At one tyme, in the early 1900s writers and reporters were called hacks or hackers. Here's a website for Horse Hackers. This site, Expressions & Sayings, on etymology or the study of words says:

Hack-work
In Old English a hackney was an ordinary horse (i.e. not a thoroughbred) suitable for general use, especially for riding by ladies; the name may have come from Hackney in London, where horses used to be raised. Shortened to hack, the word is still in use for a horse of this kind. By the 16th century, a hackney had also become a horse available for hire: this enabled the word to become a metaphor for a person hired to do low-grade work. This contemptuous sense is found, again abbreviated to hack, in such terms as hack-work (drudgery) and hack-writer as well as in hack in the sense of 'low-grade journalist'. The modern meanings of hackneyed can readily be traced back to the idea of a hired horse worn out by overwork.

The Online Etymology Dictionary has more info going back to c.1300. I see at the bottum of the second entry it says that it was reputedly first used in computer programming at MIT in 1976 and goes on further:

Hack (v.) "illegally enter a computer system" is first recorded 1984.

>I'm afraid you are mistaken, discrimination means:
>Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners, etc.

Merriam-Webster would disagree discrimination Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n Function: noun 1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

discriminate
1628, from L. discriminare "to divide," from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) "possessing discernment" (1792).
"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens] from here

Just because you use a word to mean something in politically correct doublespeak doesn't mean jack, especially when the way in which you use it in a way contradictary to the original meaning. Words mean things.